Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of John McCann, esquire, CBE, Member for Rochdale, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss which we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

INSHORE FISHERMEN (PETITION)

Mr. Judd: I beg leave to introduce a Petition from the fishermen of Portsmouth and district and others.

In this timely Petition, they state that there will be a speedy and ultimate depletion of the inshore fishing grounds of Great Britain causing hardship and ruin to her inshore fishermen and people as a result of joining the European Economic Community on 1st January, 1973, and through Her Majesty's Government's proposed abrogation of their responsibilities under the Fishery Limits Act, 1964, given to them for the precise purpose of their future protection.
There will also be a most inadequate naval patrol system for the protection of the six to twelve mile zone, the proposed six patrol vessels being a nonsense for so vast an area around Great Britain's whole coast comprising our rich outer fishing grounds and inadequate to control and supervise the Continental fishermen, anticipated because of their own barren fishing grounds caused by devastating fishing methods. Immediate action is essential for the continued supply of high protein food for our own nation and for the most vital preservation and maintenance of our own fishing industry.

The Petition concludes:
Where for your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do retain the Fishery Limits. Act, 1964, for an unlimited period and that your honourable House establishes an adequate naval patrol system competent to protect all areas under its control and supervision

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Steel Industry (Scotland)

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Garnock Valley (Action for Industry Committee) on the future of the Scottish steel industry; and what reply he has sent.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): The Committee wrote last February. The reply said that the British Steel Corporation was studying the future pattern of Scottish steel making; that major investment decisions would follow the report of the Joint Steering Group; and that the Government would take account of employment implications in considering the BSC's proposals.

Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that just over a week ago more than 5,000 people from the Garnock Valley took part in the largest-ever post-war demonstration in Ayrshire protesting against the British Steel Corporation's decision to close down the Garnock Valley steelworks, which employs 54 per cent, of the male population in the valley, and calling for Government action to direct industry into the valley before any redundancies are declared and pledging support for the STUC's campaign for a green field integrated steel mill at Hunterston? As the hon. Gentleman knows, these questions will not be resolved until we get the detailed plans of the Corporation and I should like the Minister to tell the House what action he has taken to press the Corporation for a quicker decision in these matters.

Mr. Boardman: I am aware of what was said at the meeting which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. A decision about the future of an individual works is a matter for the Corporation. I understand that it has said that the future of Garnock Valley is under active consideration, but no decisions have yet been taken.
As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the Corporation has made it clear that it is alive to its social responsibilities in that

area and it is pressing ahead with its work on the strategic options.

Stocks and Shares (Trading)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now seek to extend his powers to regulate the trading in stocks and shares by persons possessing inside information.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): The question of transactions in securities by persons with inside information is being studied in our review of company law.

Dr. Gilbert: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. In his review, will he take note of the fact that practices considered quite normal in the City of London could land people behind bars in Canada or the United States? Will he also take account of the recent recommendation of Justice that trading of this sort, not only in take-over situations but in everyday trading situations, should become a criminal offence?

Mr. Davies: I have very much under consideration the recommendations of Justice as well as those put forward by the Jenkins Committee some years ago. Provisions of the law are not wholly absent. There are, for instance, strong restrictions about dealings by directors of companies and their immediate families. But I appreciate that this matter exercises a good deal of public concern.

Motor Cars (Exhaust Emission and Safety Standards)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies his Department has made of car exhaust emission and safety standards legislation of foreign countries, in view of their restrictive effects on British car exports.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): My Department keeps in touch with developments overseas, and co-operates closely with the Department of the Environment in encouraging the adoption of common standards in Europe and elsewhere.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the Minister realise that there may be particular difficulties for British manufacturers of


smaller cars in meeting the stringent regulations based on the unique smog conditions of Los Angeles? Is he absolutely sure that all foreign companies, particularly those in the United States, are applying these regulations with the same stringency to their own domestic manufacturers as they are to their imports?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman refers to the regulations prevailing in the United States, but I have no reason to believe that those regulations are applied any differently to American manufacturers from the way in which they are applied to British and other foreign manufacturers, nor do I believe that British industry is incapable of meeting those standards.

Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the removal of tetraethyl lead from petrol will lead to very substantial upgrading in the price of petrol?

Mr. Chataway: As my hon. Friend knows, discussions on this matter are taking place and I would ask him to await the outcome.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that, whatever fears he may have about the effect on British car exports, he and his Department should do nothing to pressurise companies into having lower standards of emissions from exhausts than the standards which apply in the United States?

Mr. Chataway: Our immediate concern is to co-ordinate action in this respect in Europe. This is one field among many in which common standards with our European partners make obvious sense.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the adequacy of standards is as important as the question of co-ordination? The Government have propounded the principle that the polluter must pay the cost of clearing his own pollution, and indeed have imposed an extra cost of £1 million on the British Steel Corporation to clear up some of the debris left by the private sector. Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department having any discussion with the industry to see whether it would be practicable to impose stricter controls on car exhaust emissions in this country?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, Sir; in co-operation with the Department of the Environment we are having discussions with the companies.

British Steel Corporation (Exports)

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department has provided to the British Steel Corporation for the purpose of expanding its export potential.

Mr. Tom Boardman: The export services of the Department are available to BSC which subscribes to the Export Intelligence Service. There is close contact between the Department and the central organisation of BSC.

Mr. Barnett: Is the Minister aware that in addition to the alarming number of redundancies in the steel industry in Scotland and elsewhere, redundancies are even threatened in my own constituency in a branch of the constructional engineering division? In view of the floating of the £ and the fact that as a consequence our steel exports should be a good deal more competitive than they were, will his Department use every effort to push up the export potential of the BSC?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman no doubt is aware that the greatest aid we can give to exports is to make sure that we have an efficient industry backed by very substantial investment. It is that very high level of investment which the Government are supporting in the British Steel Corporation and which will pay the biggest dividends.

Mr. Powell: Is not one consequence of floating the £ that the Government do not need to bother their heads about exports at all?

Mr. Boardman: That gives rise to a wider question than falls to me to answer now.

Mr. Varley: In view of the fact that only recently we were told that this matter was being fully considered by the joint steering group and by McKinsey, will the Minister say how much steel will be exported assuming a target for 1980 of 28 million tons? In view of that target and bearing in mind the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assumption of a 5 per


cent. growth rate by 1980, how much steel will have to be imported?

Mr. Boardman: The Joint Steering Group figures cover a wide range of possible outcomes both at home and in regard to exports. The subsequent McKinsey Report has strengthened the Government's confidence in accepting them.

Financial Advertisements

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the control of financial advertisements; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): The Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, makes it an offence for any person in the course of business to make knowingly or recklessly in any advertisement of services, which includes financial services, a statement which is false to a material degree. Other statutes impose further regulation on particular types of financial advertising and I am considering the proposals of the Crowther Committee on Consumer Credit for regulation of advertisements of consumer credit.

Mr. McCrindle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern expressed in the Crowther Report about the content of some second mortgage advertisements? Would he give an assurance that if, having studied the matter, he feels that legislation should be brought forward for the protection of house owners, this will be done speedily?

Mr. Noble: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of this aspect and we will have it in mind in drafting legislation.

Mr. William Price: Would the Minister care to inquire from the Newspaper Publishers Association why it is that some of the most reputable newspapers accept some of the most dubious advertisements?

Mr. Noble: That goes a little wider than the original question, but, as I said, both the Trade Descriptions Act and the other Acts concerned govern untrue statements which are made knowingly or recklessly.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is the Minister satisfied that there are adequate safeguards for the British public in connection with insurance companies based in the Channel Islands? Did he see the report in The Guardian on 1st July which dealt with the Assured Investment Plan and which threw considerable doubt on the viability of the plans into which many people may have entered? In the circumstances, will he investigate the claims which are being made by those marketing these investment or insurance plans to see whether even a prosecution may be appropriate?

Mr. Noble: I will look at the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Retail Sales

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the volume of retail sales seasonally adjusted in the first quarter of 1972 compared with the same period of 1971; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: There was an increase of over 3 per cent. after allowing for the reduced level of mail order business in the first quarter of 1971 due to the postal strike. The figures for April and May show a further growth in the volume of sales.

Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he feel that this indicates that the process of destocking has come to an end and that, once the process of restocking is in the pipeline, this will help industry in general?

Mr. Davies: Yes, I believe that to be the case and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. It seems to me that we are entering a period where consumer demand is growing strongly and where there is a recognisedneed to restock to make good stocks which have been seriously drawn down. This should give a further impetus to the level of production.

European Economic Community

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to ensure that the interests of consumers and consumer organisations in


the United Kingdom are appropriately represented on the Economic and Social Committee of the European Economic Community; if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking for that purpose.

Mr. John Davies: I accept that consumers' interests have a good claim to representation. This is being taken into account in the consideration now being given to the task of finding suitable United Kingdom members for the Committee.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful for that encouraging reply. Since it is vital for the consumer to be adequately represented at the formative stage of directives and regulations in the Common Market, and since the present procedures are totally inadequate, should we not make certain that we have the strongest possible consumer representation amongst the 24 nominees to the Economic and Social Committee of the EEC?

Mr. Davies: I can give that assurance to my hon Friend, and he no doubt welcomed, as I did, the recent announcement by the Commission about the strengthening of its support on consumer matters.

Mr. Benn: Would the Government's picture not be more credible if they took a greater interest in consumer protection in the United Kingdom and showed some readiness to renegotiate the common agricultural policy, which will give a further lift to prices in 1973 and seriously affect the rate of inflation?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's question might lead us very far from the original Question, and I will not pursue it. However, I must point out that the Government's record on consumer protection is very satisfactory.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received from textile interests concerning the European Economic Community negotiations; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. John Davies: Recent representations from the textile industry have covered a wide variety of issues, including our negotiations with the European Economic Community. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade told the

hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) on 5th June, my Department will keep the industry and the House informed at appropriate times.—[Vol. 838, c. 2#3.]

Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that the estimate quoted by his right hon. Friend of 3,000 to 5,000 redundancies following the proposed ending of quotas on cotton textiles is regarded by both employers and unions alike in Lancashire as complacently conservative? In view of the special plight of the textile industry if Britain enters the EEC, will the Secretary of State at least commit himself to invoking Article 135 to give special protection to the industry, at least during the transitional period?

Mr. Davies: As I recall it, the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend were not of his devising. They were figures put to him on an advisory basis by those concerned with the industry, so they cannot be brushed aside very easily. The provisions of Article 135 exist in order to cater for a profound disruption of an industry. Undoubtedly the Government would not hesitate in such an event to have recourse to them. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is so. However, the negotiations currently in hand with the Community on these and a wide variety of matters affecting the industry should not be prejudged at this stage. I am hopeful of a satisfactory result.

Mr. Redmond: Whilst accepting that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) always gets his facts and figures wrong in any question, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Textile Industry Support Campaign seems to be very alarmed over the situation regarding the Common Market and is not entirely supported by the whole industry? Is there anything that can be done to dissuade the Textile Industry Support Campaign from quoting rather wild figures of possible unemployment, which I do not think will come about?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. The figures quoted by the Textile Industry Support Campaign seem to be grossly exaggerated. I am not unhopeful of the current discussions. So much remains yet to be clarified, both in relation to the position of cotton yarn and other matters which have been raised today. But it


would be wrong to prejudge this issue at this stage.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Many people in Lancashire will not be as satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's bland assurances as was the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton). The people of Lancashire can see that if cotton yarn is imported without quotas they will find themselves—although there may be arguments about the numbers—without jobs. If the right hon. Gentleman wants evidence of numbers in terms of what is happening in Europe, regardless of the precise evidence, he will find that the evidence is clearly there, in the amount of Europe's imports of cotton yarn, despite the fact that there is nominally a non-quota system. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance now that from 1st January next year he will invoke Article 135 which, as he said, is there for him to use?

Mr. Davies: Whether the figures are those which have been put to me by the hon. Member who tabled the Question or those supplied by the Textile Industry Support Campaign, the numbers are still very much a matter of concern. There is a big problem here. The main reassurance the industry has is the fact that the Government did not hesitate to act forcefully on this subject last year when they were faced with similar problems.

Computers

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy towards the British computer industry.

Mr. Chataway: The Government will be replying soon to those recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to which there has as yet been no response.

Mr. Strang: Do the Government intend to provide direct support for British firms other than ICL, perhaps by way of development contracts? Have they ruled out the possibility of setting up a consumer research and development board to administer all Government support for the industry on the lines suggested by the Select Committee on Science and Technology? Will he undertake to make a statement on this matter before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Chataway: I can at least, in response to the third point, tell the hon. Member that I hope that I shall be able to make a statement before the Summer Recess and that included in it will be answers to his two previous Questions.

Motor Vehicles (Sales)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of new motor vehicles sold in April, 1972, as compared with April, 1971; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: The information is given in "Trade and Industry" for 15th June. This shows that the value of new motor vehicles sold by the motor distribution and garage trades increased by 32 per cent.

Mr. Chapman: While grateful for that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether in fact there has been as great an increase in the number of vehicles sold as in the value, and also in the export sales as well?

Mr. Chataway: I think it would be fair to say that it is not as yet, and if output has not kept pace with demand entirely it appears to be because of the industrial disputes from which the motor industry has suffered over recent months.

Air Transport (Security Arrangements)

Sir R. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further steps he proposes in order to improve security arrangements at airports and in the air.

The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The development, implementation and checking of security measures is a continuing process and I have stressed to airport authorities and airlines that there must be no relaxation in the pressure that recent incidents have created. A Bill to provide powers to ratify the Montreal Convention will be introduced as soon as possible.
I have requested that a number of additional precautions be introduced at airports throughout the country. Airlines and airport authorities, which bear prime responsibility for security, are continually reviewing their procedures.

Sir R. Thompson: While that reply is satisfactory as far as it goes, is my hon. Friend persuaded that he has done enough in this matter? Does he realise that the evidence of hijackings accumulates every day and that a very serious dimension has been added to the measurement of safety of people who travel by air? Would he not consider taking advice from, for example, the Israeli authorities, who alone of all people appear to have an effective way of dealing with miscreants of this kind who are apprehended?

Mr. Heseltine: I would be prepared to take advice from any authority with experience of this very serious and growing menace, and I share my hon. Friend's concern, but I think he will appreciate that a great deal of work is done but which is not drawn to public attention, because it can immediately be counterproductive if one announces an additional security measure which one has just introduced

Mr. Mason: But the Government cannot shed their responsibility in this matter, having provided £1 million a year to airports and airlines to make the screening of passengers and baggage effective. Is the hon. Gentleman personally satisfied that the screening is adequate? Secondly, regarding the problem of "in the air", what line are the Government taking at the International Civil Aviation Organisation regarding concerted action by the ICAO States involved to tackle the hijacking problem?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that with 7 million people departing from Heathrow alone in any one year it is not for me to give an assurance that each of the 7 million people is properly searched and scrutinised. But I think he fully appreciates that there can be no question of the Government not taking on fully their responsibilities, since we were the Government who only recently decided to make available £1 million so that financial restraint should not in any way hinder the airlines on which the primary responsibility for carrying out security work lies. He will be interested to know that when I met representatives of the pilots not long ago I assured them that the Government would take every effort they could to support international efforts now

being made to make more effective the security precautions exercised, within the powers available to Governments throughout the world in the event of hijacking. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will welcome my statement just now about the Montreal Convention.

Mr. Tebbit: Would my hon. Friend not agree that whatever one does there will always be almost the certainty that a really determined group of people can hijack an aeroplane, and would he not also agree, therefore, that the key to this whole problem is diplomatic pressures, as through the Montreal Convention, to ensure that hijackers are swiftly brought to justice?

Mr. Heseltine: I fully accept that, and I was able to assure the pilots on very much that point. I was immensely grateful, therefore, that they felt it unnecessary to proceed with the strike action threatened against this country, and that that was a result in some part of the assurance that I was able to give them. I would not care to go completely with my hon. Friend, for although I understand him when he says that one can never have 100 per cent. guarantee in this situation, if one looks at the numbers of offensive weapons found by security checks at airports in this country one will realise that there is no certainty that a determined group of people would get away with it. I would not like to allow such an impression to remain on the record.

Mr Clinton Davis: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the possible establishment in London of an office representing Arab terrorist organisations which have claimed responsibility for the hijacking and massacre at Lod is conducive to the security arrangements of which he has been speaking?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that should be a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as distinct from my Department, for my Department is essentially concerned with dealing with the problems at the airports.

Manchester

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries from industrialists with regard to the Manchester travel-to-work


area have been received since the designation of the new North-Western intermediate area on 22nd March, 1972; and how many new jobs in total, and for men and women, respectively, are expected to result from these inquiries

Mr. Chataway: Twenty IDCs have been granted for projects estimated to provide 1,100 jobs. In addition there have been further applications for IDCs, 20 inquiries about factories and a large number of inquiries about our new incentives, from many of which job opportunities could arise.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since his new policies were introduced with such a fanfare four months ago, what we have had in Manchester from these policies is all scrape and no bread? Is he aware that in these four months we have lost 4,500 jobs at Irlam and Churchill's and that all that he has been able to tell the House in that extremely complicated reply is that in less than three weeks there have been two inquiries which will produce no jobs? When will he give Manchester the jobs it needs?

Mr. Chataway: I can accept none of that. The plain fact is that at Manchester and elsewhere there has been a substantial reduction in unemployment over recent months. The level of inquiries we have received in the North-Western office has increased, but even if it does not comfort the hon. Gentleman, there are very large numbers of people who are aware of the opportunities which the new incentives have provided and are sure that they are of benefit to the region.

Mr. Normanton: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that some of the manifestations which there have been in certain sectors of industry in the North West have themselves been against encouraging industry to expand? Would he not highlight this as being an extremely good ground on which industry will continue to deteriorate so long as irresponsibility is of that order?

Mr. Chataway: I believe that good industrial relations there and elsewhere are a tremendous asset to any region and that a number of companies have had successful expansion.

Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional employment for men is in prospect in Sunderland.

Mr. Chataway: 740 male jobs in the Sunderland Group of Employment Exchange Areas. This takes no account of jobs that may arise in the service sector.

Mr. Willey: Does the Minister realise that, welcome though it is, it does little more than match continuing redundancies and closures? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Employment shocked the Sunderland Corporation recently by refusing to discuss with it the question of high and persistent unemployment in Sunderland? In view of this, would he consider discussing with Sunderland the opportunities which may arise from the new Industry Bill?

Mr. Chataway: I am very willing to arrange any discussions which may be helpful. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has derived satisfaction from the fact that in the past two months the unemployment figure in Sunderland has dropped by nearly 1,000.

Petroleum Companies (Discussions)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent official discussions he has had with petrol companies operating in the United Kingdom on matters of mutual concern.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I and my colleagues keep in close touch with the oil industry.

Mr. Cox: I am very pleased to hear that remark, but could the hon. Gentleman say whether that at this last meeting any discussion took place as to the conditions which are imposed by petrol companies on the purchase and sale of petrol and the conditions which they impose on garage proprietors? While I am certain they present difficulties to proprietors, they are certainly a disadvantage to the consumers, because motorists have to pay a much higher price for their petrol than otherwise they would need to


pay. Could he say whether any discussion took place on this point?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this has been the subject of a Monopolies Commission report and of discussions from time to time. The matter is being kept under close watch by the Government

Concorde

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints were received by his Department about the noise made by Concorde 002 when it landed at London Airport on Saturday, 1st July

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Up to Friday, 7th July, 25 complaints were received in the Department. I understand that 522 complaints were received in the Southern Divisional Office of the Civil Aviation Authority and 114 by the British Airports Authority. Over 70 per cent. of those were on cards distributed before the aircraft returned to this country on 1st July by the Anti-Concorde Project. Thirty-two messages of congratulation were received and I believe that nearly all the several thousand visitors to Heathrow did so out of pride in the aircraft.

Mr. Barnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, whether or not the protests were organised in the way he alleged, that the fact remains that a large number of people living in West London under the glide path of London Airport, some of whom I have visited and talked to, were scared out of their wits by the noise on that occasion and some were convinced that something was about to crash? Will he reaffirm the answer which his hon. Friend gave to me on 8th May that when Concorde comes into operation the noise it makes will be about the same as that of the 707 and VC10?

Mr. Heseltine: I can confirm that the manufacturers will be entering into contracts that provide for the noise levels of Concorde to be similar to those of the 707, DC8 and VC10 now using international airports. May I take advantage of the hon. Gentleman's Question to make it clear that while I have not the slightest doubt that a large number of letters were organised by the anti-Concorde project, that is by no means all picture. There were undoubtedly a

number of people who wrote to me because they realised that this was a noisy aircraft and they wanted me to understand that this was a genuine personal point. They wanted me to read their letters, which I have done. I am fully sympathetic with that view, which I fully understand. I had to take a decision whether to bring Concorde back to Heathrow—realising that this was not the engine which would be used when the aircraft went into service—and thereby enabling a real tribute to be paid, which the overwhelming majority of people wanted to pay, to the people who had made the Concorde tour such a success.

Mr. Benn: We are grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the difference between the present engine and the engine that will be in the aircraft on entry to service. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I hope that he will not give any impression—he did not do so in hisanswer—that the Government are unconscious of the noise problem but that, on the contrary, they realise that even those who organise protests about noise do reflect a body of opinion? Is he further aware that we have a difficult balance to keep here and. if I may say so, that the Government are keeping it well? Does he realise that I hope that in promoting this aircraft, in which a great investment has been made, we shall all be highly conscious of the fact that environmental standards in peoples' minds are rightly and properly rising?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that I have a responsibility to ensure that there is a balance between real growth in airport use and environmental considerations. Equally, I have to take into account that certain of the postcards from the anti-Concorde project complaining about noise were posted before the aircraft had reached Heathrow.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the European Space Conference on llth–12th July, with particular reference to possible British participation in the American post-Apollo programme.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had concerning


United Kingdom participation in the American post-Apollo; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Member countries of the European Space Conference decided on 6th July that the implications of the revised offer by the United States of participation in the post-Apollo programme required further detailed study. The proposed meeting on 11th–12th July was therefore postponed until September. Discussions with our European partners are currently taking place.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement in today's issue of Aviation Week which says:
 In London, officials close to the project tend to agree with Frutkin
—that is, Frutkin of NASA—
that 'there has been constant procrastination on decision-making at all levels'.
This is a reference to the British Government. Have we, as Europeans, said goodbye to participation? How does the Minister explain the sins of his predecessors?

Mr. Heseltine: I must confess that there are certain of my predecessors in some distant Government, not long ago, in fact, whose sins I could never explain in any circumstances. It is true so say that this is a very difficult decision for Europe to make. There are a large number of wide issues involved and Europe rightly wants to give them careful consideration from a political and technological point of view. This we are doing, and the Americans fully under stand our position. That is why they have been able to extend—

Mr. Dalyell: What makes the hon. Member think that?

Mr. Heseltine: The answer to that sedentary question is that the Americans fully understand the situation and that is why they have enabled us to put off the decision, until the autumn, in this way.

Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend not agree that unless something is done before long to improve decision-making on this sort of project within this country and Europe, the decision on possible participation will be taken by default and we

shall still be discussing the project as the Americans launch it into the air?

Mr. Heseltine: This is a problem facing the Government and the European Governments. I hope, on the specific application to which the question draws attention, that we shall not let the decision go by default.

Mr. Millan: What is the new deadline for decision?

Mr. Heseltine: The Americans have talked to us in terms of September-October.

RB211

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of export earnings arising from sales by Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited of RB211 engines, spares and services during each of the years from 1972 to 1976.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I understand that Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. expect these to amount to about £65 million this year, about £80 million next year and about £100 million in each of the following three years.

Mr. Rosts: While those figures for exports of the Rolls-Royce RB211 engines are most encouraging, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not agree that the export potential would be even greater if only we could get a decision on the finance required for a stretched version, since foreign airlines would no longer hesitate in ordering the TriStar plus the stretched version, and this would secure export orders for a long time to come?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of the interest in the decision of BAB in respect of the TriStar and the decision on any possible uprating of the RB211 engine. My hon. Friend will be aware of the statement I made recently that I hoped to reach a decision on both these matters within a few weeks.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an order for TriStar by BEA would have an encouraging effect upon other international airlines and would help the export position?

Mr. Heseltine: I am fully aware of the ramifications of the BAB order.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, as he has been able to give us this estimate, what is his estimate of the return to the Exchequer and the public from the Government intervention giving this investment to the company?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will know better than most that the figures I gave were gross sales figures and that they have relatively little to do with return on investment.

Mr. Barnett: What is the answer?

Estate Agents and Mortgage Brokers (Registration)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report the reply which he sent to the letter which he received on 5th June, 1972, from the Society for the Control and Registration of Estate Agents and Mortgage Brokers.

Mr. Noble: My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade wrote to the Society, offering to meet it to discuss the issues raised in its letter to me. I should have no objection if it wished to publish this correspondence, but the OFFICIAL REPORT is not the place for it.

Mr. Davis: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that his answer to a similar question posed by me three weeks ago to the effect that there were fewer cases of dishonesty by estate agents and mortgage brokers reported to him recently than in the past is a totally unsatisfactory way of approaching this problem? Is he further aware that many reliable and honest firms of estate agents and mortgage brokers are anxious to get their house set in order and to establish legislation whereby they are required, just as solicitors, to keep clients' accounts and to have a professional body to which they can be answerable?

Mr. Noble: I am aware that there are still problems. It is surely relevant whether the number of complaints on matters of this sort are large or small. In my earlier reply I said that there were very few complaints, and the same is true today. As for mortgage brokers, I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the Gov-

ernment are considering a recommendation of the Crowther Committee that all granters of credit should be licensed.

Mr. Freeson: How much longer shall we have to wait for a decision? Is the Minister aware that the whole question was the subject of draft legislation as long ago as 1966 but that the legislation was suspended on the basis that the trade itself would organise a voluntary registration system and that that system has been a failure? Is it not about time that action was taken to legislate without waiting any longer?

Mr. Noble: I do not entirely accept that the voluntary system has been a failure. It has enormously reduced the number of complaints which have been received.

Grand Metropolitan—Watney (Merger)

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now refer the Grand Metropolitan-Watney merger to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. John Davies: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) on 6th July.—[Vol. 840, c. 223.]

Mr. Price: Whatever the rights and wrongs of that decision—and it will certainly cause astonishment in the licensing trade—will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will closely watch the position of the thousands of publicans involved? Will he make it clear to Grand Metropolitan that if the merger goes through he will not stand idly by while the policy of Watney Mann is continued of kicking out hundreds of tenants and replacing them with managers solely for the benefit of profits?

Mr. Davies: The whole area is constantly under consideration by the Government. The position of this strengthened brewing group does not constitute any new effective monopoly, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I will certainly watch the matter.

Mr. Benn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a growing feeling, not confined to one side of


the House, that to consider mergers of this kind without any requirement to take account of the people whose lives will be affected—my hon. Friend has mentioned one group of people, and there are many others—is increasingly being seen as totally unsatisfactory? Failure to take into account the interests of those involved may well be a recipe for failure, even in that limited range of criteria. Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the possibility of ensuring that those who work in firms or industries in which mergers are proposed have their views sought and put before the panel or the Commission before a final decision is reached?

Mr. Davies: How the Commission operates under the terms of our reference to it is prescribed by Statute and determined by the Commission itself. The right hon. Gentleman reproached me for inadequate concern about consumer interests and forgetting the people involved. Those interests also have to receive a large degree of consideration—a degree for which the Labour Government did not adequately provide.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that when I recently drew an analogy between his decision not to refer and then to refer a certain drugs merger to the Monopolies Commission and contributions to the Conservative Party, he described that as an insolent suggestion? Would he similarly describe a suggestion that his decision not to refer the Watney merger to the Commission has anything to do with the fact that Watney refused to contribute to the Conservative Party this year?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is working up for himself a monopoly in insolent suggestions, is he not?

North Sea Gas and Oil

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now introduce amending legislation concerning the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil.

Mr. Tom Boardman: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there has been a dramatic change in oil and gas exploration since the original legislation in 1964 and that the royalties that will accrue

to the British Government and therefore to the British people will be less than those accruing to most other oil-producing countries? Is he aware that Scotland is in grave danger of not getting the benefit from its own natural resources to which it is entitled?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman is not right in saying that the royalties that will accrue are less than those in all other countries. A variety of royalties is fixed and a variety of terms is put forward. One of the most material factors in granting licences in the last round was the contribution that the successful applicants would make to the United Kingdom economy. That I believe to be an important factor which the hon. Gentleman would support.

Mr. Strang: Does not the Minister agree that the major issue with North Sea oil is to ensure that British and Scottish firms make a substantial contribution towards the hundreds of millions of pounds worth of materials required by oil firms, bearing in mind that many of the contracts which should be going to British industry are going not only to American but to Dutch and French firms whose industries were built up by Government support? Will he look at the possibility of giving development contracts to British firms so that they can acquire the expertise needed for off-shore industry?

Mr. Boardman: It is for that reason that I stressed in replying to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that one of the criteria in the last round of licensing was the contribution that applicants would make to the United Kingdom economy. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware of what has been done by the Government in introducing consultants, in promoting the Standing Conference on North Sea Oil and in other matters to ensure that industry in Scotland and the United Kingdom is able to take full advantage of the opportunities being provided for it.

Mr. Skeet: Is my hon. Friend aware that the royalties payable are comparable to those in the Middle East and also that the oil companies, Shell and Esso, pay extremely large amounts of taxation in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Boardman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely correct on


both those matters. It must not be overlooked that the companies have already invested about £300 million in exploration, and that there is probably another £1,500 million or £1,700 million to be found.

Mr. Varley: Is it not about time that we began to maximise the national interest in this vital area of the North Sea? Is any study being made of what is taking place and of the action of the Norwegians in this vital area of their economy? Are there not many lessons Britain can learn from Norway in this matter?

Mr. Boardman: We are watching carefully what is being done in other countries. Policy is kept under review and all the relevant factors are being taken into account. The pattern changes, and it is our responsibility to be aware of those changes and to anticipate them.

Cotton (Import Quotas)

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to continue after 1st January, 1973 import quotas on cotton yarn imported into the United Kingdom from areas outside the European Economic Community.

Mr. John Davies: I have nothing to add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) on 1st May and to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond) on 21st April.—[Vol. 836, c. 17; Vol. 835, c. 171.]

Mr. Jay: As most of the EEC countries shut out yarn imports by underhand methods, will not the abolition of the quota here concentrate cheap imports on this country? In these circumstances are the Government taking no further action to support the spinning industry?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government will continue to be very much concerned with the success of the industry and will not lightly abandon their interests. The right hon. Gentleman need have no fear whatever on the subject. The evidence is to be seen in what the Government have done in the last year or so. The right hon. Gentleman has made allegations about Community countries. If

he has a particular instance which he can cite I shall be grateful if he will let me know. Vague charges are difficult to follow up.

Mr. Normanton: I thank my right hon. Friend for the assurance he has given of his deep and continuing concern for the industry. Will he accept that evidence can be found—and I shall be delighted to produce it for him—to show the way in which Continental textile industries take the law into their own hands? I earnestly hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to assure the industry of his support on every possible occasion.

Mr. Davies: What I have already said should be a strong reassurance and I will certainly repeat that as required. Any evidence which my hon. Friend can give me will be equally appreciated because, as I say, trying to base cases on vague charges is never easy.

Mr. James Lamond: Is it not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman should have to be told of the methods used by EEC countries to keep out cotton yarn when many of his hon. Friends are able to demonstrate that this is so and when the textile industry is so alarmed that it has sent deputations to EEC countries to discover how it is done? Is not this a job that his Department should be doing if the right hon. Gentleman means what he says about protecting the industry and does not support the Prime Minister's view, recently stated in a letter, that he is prepared to write the industry off?

Mr. Davies: I absolutely refute the hon. Gentleman's last statement, which is incorrect. Concerning his former questions, I have a very considerable compendium of knowledge about methods alleged against other countries in their handling of this problem. When it comes to the hard facts and having to cite them, though, people are much more hesitant to do so, and that is what I am seeking from the House.

Shipbuilding (Japanese-EEC Agreement)

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with British shipbuilders about the possible effect upon British trade of the cartel-type arrangement recently negotiated between


Japanese and European shipbuilders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: I understand that a number of British shipbuilders are having discussions with their European counterparts about a proposed agreement between certain Japanese and EEC shipbuilding firms. I am not aware that any agreement has been concluded.

Mr. Skeet: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is a vast overcapacity in the building of very large crude carriers and would he accept that a certain amount of exchange of information on the subject would help to rationalise the position? Would he further accept that the elimination of shipbuilding subsidies by Governments would be the best solution ultimately?

Mr. Davies: As I said, the Government will keep very closely in touch with those British shipbuilding concerns which are having discussions currently with their European opposite numbers. Concerning the abatement of support to the shipbuilding industry, my hon. Friend is aware that this matter is currently under discussion and negotiation in the OECD.

Mr. Millan: Would it not give a considerable fillip to the British shipbuilding industry if the Government made a decision on representations made to them by the Chamber of Shipping and the British Shipbuilders Federation about a scheme of incentives to British ship-owners to place orders in British shipyards? When shall we have an announcement about that?

Mr. Davies: This matter is under careful consideration, but the proposals put forward by the shipping industry, in concert with the shipbuilding industry, clearly present problems. Great help has been given and is being given to the shipbuilding industry, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Therefore, any further assistance has to be seen in the context of what general assistance can be given. But I am very interested in the proposals made to me and I shall certainly respond to them shortly.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement today in answer to Question No. 30? Is he aware that all of us concerned about shipbuilding

and shipping have an interest in what he will say? As it has taken a very long time to approach Question No. 30, will my right hon. Friend make a statement? During the Committee stage of the Industry Bill recently, my right hon. Friend's junior Ministers did not seem to be as interested in helping shipbuilding and shipping as most of us who represent the affected areas would like. Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on Question No. 30 at the end of Question time?

Mr. Davies: Hesitant as I am, and fearful to engage in controversy with my hon. Friend—

Dame Irene Ward: I like controversy.

Mr. Davies: —I consider that my right hon. Friend, on the contrary, has shown throughout the utmost concern in trying to support shipping and the shipbuilding industry. I could not, on that account, undertake to make a separate statement on the question, when the originator of the Question—if my eyes do not fail me—is not present in the Chamber

Rolls Royce Limited

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now able to state what the prospects are for the holders of workers' shares in the old Rolls Royce Company.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I have nothing to add to the statement by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Adjournment debate on 17th April.—[Vol. 835. c 194–6.]

Mr. Johnson: Is not the Minister aware that many holders of workers' shares are retired staff who not only gave a lifetime of service to Rolls Royce but invested their life savings as well? Surely the Government can look again at this very human problem and try to find some way of compensating these people?

Mr. Heseltine: I fully sympathise with the very deep feelings of the hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, any of those who worked for the company for a lifetime. But the fact of the matter is that it is impossible to devise a scheme which distinguishes between one group of shareholders and another. This is the view we expressed in the Adjournment debate.


and I am afraid that no way round it has been found subsequently.

Mr. Rost: As any compensation to shareholders must depend to a large extent on the value placed by the independent assessor on the assets taken over by the Government, should not the independent assessor's investigations be held publicly? As the new company has been trading for 18 months, when can we expect the first profit figures?

Mr. Heseltine: If my hon. Friend cares to table a Question about that, I shall deal with it as soon as possible. But I am delighted that we have been able to go ahead with the appointment of the expert, so that the negotiations about the valuation can proceed as fast as possible.

Mr. Benn: As the Government have made a notable exception in underwriting the engine to the end of its life in respect of its work with the Lockheed Tristar, and as the people involved had worked with Rolls Royce over a very long period and were not simply investors, would it not be possible for the Government to single out this group and to make some special provision to meet their needs in some category totally different from that of ordinary investors

Mr. Heseltine: Again, I can only say that this is a matter at which we have looked very carefully, and there are various anomalies with which one is confronted—people who have disposed of their shares, and people who have bought shares at lower prices—which make it very difficult to see a way out of this very difficult situation. The only other area that merits further consideration is the difficulty that arises as a result of the locked-in position that developed in respect of the workers' shares, and this is a matter which perhaps, when a suitable occasion arose, could be considered for legislative change.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members will have noticed that today's Amendment Paper is in two parts. Part 1 contains notices given up to last Tuesday night. Part 2 contains notices given since then, together with lists of Amendments withdrawn and of names added to Amendments since Tuesday.
I have already mentioned to the House the difficulties posed to the printer by the size of the Amendment Paper. I have accordingly authorised this special arrangement for today's sitting. The Amendment Papers for Wednesday's and Thursday's consideration of the Bill will be published in the usual form.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the convenience of the House, when calling the Amendments will you adopt the policy of stating on which page of the Amendment Paper each Amendment appears? I have spent hours trying to find my way through these Amendment Papers. If you would follow my suggestion it would be a great help to hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: The suggestion is that when an Amendment is moved and other Amendments are being discussed with it the right hon. or hon. Member moving the Amendment should indicate on which page of the Amendment Paper the other Amendments are. That will be all right, so long as the Chair does not have to do it.

,The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That would be an impossible task. If I had been warned by the hon. Member before, I might have succeeded in marking up my Amendment Paper accordingly. If I am to follow the hon. Member's suggestion it will keep the House a very long time, especially with Opposition Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we can come to it later.

Clause 2

CONSTITUTION OF PRINCIPAL COUNCILS IN ENGLAND

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 310, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'of the county or district council' and insert—
'"The County Council" or "The District Council"'

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following Amendments: No. 134, in page 2, line 40, leave out from 'be' to end of line 41.

Government Amendment No. 311, in line 40, at end insert 'particular'.

Government Amendment No. 315, in Clause 15, page 9, leave out line 5 and insert:
' "The Parish Council" with the addition of the name of the particular parish'.

Government Amendment No. 318, in Clause 35, page 18, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert:
'name "The Community Council" with the addition of the name of the particular community'.

Mr. Page: All these Amendments are designed to clarify the provisions in respect of the names of principal councils and parish councils in England and community councils in Wales. They meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) in Standing Committee on 27th January by the simple device of using capitals. They make it clear that the name of a local authority will include both the status of the council—for example, a county council—and the name of the area. It would be similar to my calling the hon. Gentleman "the Member" if I were to accept his Amendment which seeks to leave out the name of the county or district.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: We on this side are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and accept the Amendments. The Bill will now read much more intelligently and elegantly than it did with the wording from the 1933 Act. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendments, by the ingenious device of putting capital letters for the words concerned, meet the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 311, in page 2, line 40, at end insert 'particular'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 3

CONFERRING OF BOROUGH STATUS ON DISTRICTS

Mr. Jasper More: I beg to move Amendment No. 1183, in page 3, line 17, at end insert—
(1A) A petition for a charter under this section shall not be presented by the council of a district which comprises more than one existing borough unless more than half of those entitled to vote in local government elections are at the time of the passing of this Act residents within the boundaries of one of such boroughs.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take the following sub-Amendment (a), leave out from ' shall' to end and insert:
'be presented upon a resolution supported by a majority of the Council by vote'.

Amendment No. 477, in page 3, line 21, at end insert:
and where a district comprises only one existing borough, such a petition shall not be presented except upon a resolution supported also by not less than two-thirds of the members representing such borough and voting thereon at such a meeting.
Amendment No. 1183 with the sub-Amendment are on page 11312 in Part 2. Amendment No. 477 is on page 11149 in Part 1.

Mr. More: The object of the two Amendments to which my name appears is to make another appeal to my right hon. Friend on behalf of the boroughs which under the provisions of the Bill are to lose their existing status. This debate was started in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) in connection with that part of Clause 1 which related to the rural boroughs. This is because it happens that in my constituency I have no fewer than four of the existing seven rural boroughs. But the logic of these Amendments applies to all boroughs which are destined to lose their existing status. The appeal we make to my right hon. Friend—not for the first time—is to try to meet the wishes of these boroughs to retain as far as possible their dignities and titles.
When we debated Clause 1 previously we were given copies of a letter which had been sent, under the authority of my right hon. Friend, by the Department to the various local authority associations regarding further proposals for borough status and civic dignities.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to pay regard to the realities in regard to those places which have borough status and to try to do something within the ambit of the Bill to preserve at any rate their historic identities.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the enormous trouble which has been taken in preparing and circulating these suggestions. Will it be possible for the whole matter to be reconsidered—either here or in another place—from a slightly different angle, with particular emphasis on the titles and dignities at district level of both the new district authorities and the boroughs involved in them? Anybody who has studied the re-drawn map of England which was circulated to us when the proposals came out originally will have seen a large variety of situations in the new areas which it is proposed to create at both the first tier and the second tier.
Taking a few examples at random in my part of the world, in Shropshire, there are proposals for a single county, which we are preserving under a name which I hope is not yet finally decided, containing four district authorities all of them differently circumstanced as regards their rural boroughs and their boroughs.
If I may take one example, No. 2 district is Shrewsbury. There we have an area that is dominated by a single town in the middle of a district area, and the question might arise whether a special tide was to be provided for the new district. In the memorandum which was circulated by the Department in April, 1972, "Draft Proposals for new districts in the English non-metropolitan countries", there is tabulated on page 44 the population total showing the situation in Shropshire. One sees in the new District No. 2 that the Shrewsbury Metropolitan Borough, which still exists as a borough, has considerably more than half of the population of the new district authority proposed to be created.
Although Shrewsbury is not my actual responsibility, I believe that it would be sensible and logical, if the councillors in that area so desire, that the chairman of their authority should be known as the mayor of Shrewsbury notwithstanding that it includes the more rural area of Atcham. This is really what is provided for in the Amendment in which we say

where a district comprises only one existing borough, such a petition"—
that is a petition for mayoral rights and so on—
shall not be presented except upon a resolution supported also by not less than two-thirds of the members representing such borough and voting thereon at such a meeting.
This would imply that if this were put before the new council and two-thirds of the councillors representing the borough area of Shrewsbury were in favour of this, that would qualify them to put forward a petition under Clause 3.
Amendment No. 1183 is designed to meet the case where a new district authority comprises more than one existing borough. This must apply in a number of areas. It applies, for example, in a constituency next door to my own—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton)—whose No. 1 district authority, which is Kidderminster, includes two municipal boroughs. One is Kidderminster itself and the other is Bewdley. If one looks at the draft proposals for new districts from which I have already quoted, on page 25 one sees the populations of the respective authorities set out, and we find that Kidderminster, in fact, provides just more than half of the total population of the new area. It is not for me to pontificate about the situation in a constituency which is not my own, but obviously there might arise a difficult question as to whether it is right or not that an application should be made for the whole of that area, including another borough, Bewdley, to acquire the title for its chairman as mayor of Kidderminster.

3.45 p.m.

I should like to say a word about my own area. Referring to Shropshire, on page 44, we have the situation under the present proposals that if we look at new District No. 4 we find that we have four areas there. Altogether they include, although they are not separately listed in the Bill, four rural boroughs, and these are all small boroughs, none of which population wise can be said to dominate the new area. It would be very wrong if it were thought proper for the chairman of that area to be known by the name of any one of those four boroughs. It would be an invidious distinction which would be highly unacceptable to the three other boroughs concerned.

My right hon. Friend may be aware, though this is slightly sidetracking the issue, that we are petitioning to have this area divided into two. That does not, unfortunately, solve this problem because even with the division into two we shall still be left with two of these rural boroughs in each area. So we still face that same problem.

Amendment No. 1183 seeks to establish that a petition for a charter under Clause 3 shall not be presented at all
unless more than half of those entitled to vote in local government elections are at the time of the passing of this Act resident within the boundaries of one of such boroughs.
So unless there is one borough which is, so to speak, dominating the area population-wise it would not be in order to present such a petition at all. The object is simply to preserve the positions of the existing boroughs or rural boroughs.

The corollary of this, which I should again like to put to my right hon. Friend, is that the Government should try to preserve the realities of the situation by not inventing unreal titles for the new district authorities. There obviously must be in the country—I have instanced the case of Shrewsbury—areas where it would be sensible, or at least plausible, to give a mayoral status to the whole of the new district although it includes a large area not part of any existing borough. I suggest that where that situation does not apply it would be sensible to retain the system which in our own part of the world has worked very well since the reorganisation which we in Shropshire, together with, I think, two other counties, underwent six years ago.

Since then our boroughs, although reduced to the status of rural boroughs, have retained the title of mayor for their chairmen, while simultaneously the rural districts in which those boroughs are now situated and to which they have surrendered most of their powers have retained for their chairmen the name of "chairman". I assure my right hon. Friend, because the whole object is that there should not be confusion in these matters, that in six years' experience in Shropshire we have not had any confusion. There is no doubt in anybody's mind who is the chairman of Ludlow Rural District Council and who is the mayor of the

Borough of Ludlow. I do not see that anything is to be gained, for the cause of uniformity, in abolishing that situation in the interests of inventing the title of mayor for areas which traditionally are not boroughs.

We have had several debates on this matter, some of them initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock in Committee, and one in which I myself took part in the House on Clause 1. I think that my right hon. Friend suggested that these could be questions for decision, probably, in another place. On behalf of all in Shropshire who are concerned for our historic traditions, I assure him that we shall be grateful if more thought can be given to the whole matter and, perhaps, further consultations held between the time when the Bill leaves this House and its arrival in the other place, in the hope that we may embark upon our new local government reorganisation in a spirit of harmony and co-operation.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: In Committee it became abundantly clear that the enormous complexities arising from the Bill were such that it would be difficult in any case to lay down a strict yardstick to measure the qualification to apply for borough status. In large new non-county areas there are districts which have within them boroughs of varying size, and there are smaller non-county areas with districts which have large county boroughs within them. In addition, there are situations of overlap where predominance of population arising from the movement of people away from the central urban areas to the periphery has created other problems.
Already in Clause 3 we have an admission from the Government that a district may pray
for the grant of a charter under this section
and
Her Majesty by the advice of Her Privy Council
may think fit to
grant a charter conferring on that district the status of a borough
The intention, presumably, is that an application shall be from the district, and it shall be formulated by the council. It would be difficult to have an application based upon a proportion of the electorate in one or two or more county boroughs within a district.
One comes across an anomaly straight away. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) argued his case very well, directing it to "more than half" of the population in the circumstances which he described. In the Bill, on the other hand, we have it that a district council in making an application shall come to its decision by a majority of not less than two-thirds. There is a conflict of proportions here: on the one hand, not less than half the electorate, and, on the other, not less than two-thirds of the elected members of the district council. My sub-Amendment—I suspect that it is in the wrong place, but we are relying at this stage on the Minister, so that the precise position of Amendments is not all that material—would lay down simply that an application for borough status should depend upon a clear majority in the council.
Why has the Minister decided that a majority of not less than two-thirds of a council shall be required? It cannot be argued that that is the practice anyway, for so much of the Bill takes us away from practice that we now have new considerations and a new situation. One might have picked on eight-tenths or four-fifths of a council. There is nothing sacrosanct in two-thirds, although I acknowledge that a majority of two-thirds is used for a number of purposes. For example, the conferment of freeman ship of a borough upon a worthy citizen is, in practice, determined by a two-thirds majority. In this situation, however, where we are dealing with something entirely new, where charters dating back over the centuries are to be dispensed with, the same argument cannot apply. The ancient Borough of Hartlepool, for example, had its charter under King John.
There is good reason for adopting a different formula in these circumstances for the application for borough status. There is nothing wrong with the majority decision. There can be difficulties, on the other hand, if a set proportion is chosen for the majority. I want the Minister to give his grounds for not being willing to accept the simple majority, bearing in mind that practically everything else which is done in our democratic institutions is done on the basis of a majority decision.
I hope that the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow about population

apportionment will be taken into account but at the end of the day, no matter how desirable it may be, it is difficult to evolve a qualification for borough status based purely upon the electorate. Those who are elected by the electors are expected to take the issues to them. When the elections for the new districts come along, county boroughs as they exist today will put the case through the candidates presenting themselves. In a legal sense, those county boroughs will cease to exist, but the people who matter are there on the ground, and the new candidates will seek to put to the electors the issue of borough status. The thought will be very much in the minds of people living in the existing county boroughs.
In my view, the emphasis should now be on what the elected members should do once they are returned to office, and how Parliament should expect them to apply for borough status. In this highly complex situation, let us do the simplest thing and not invite trouble by laying down a set majority proportion; let us make it a simple majority, as is normal in every other circumstance.

4.0 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), especially in his closing request to the Government to think again and, perhaps, to review the whole matter when the Bill goes to the other place.
Like all hon. Members, I have read with care the entire Committee stage, with particular attention to the debates on Amendments put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). As I understand all that has been said, the Bill now provides that nobody other than a new district may apply for a charter and borough status and a mayor; that is to say, no one component authority within a district will be permitted under the Clause to apply for a charter.
In my own case, we have the town of Maidenhead, whose most recent charter was dated 1569, and the Royal Borough of New Windsor, whose first charter was granted in 1277 and whose present charter dates from 1466.
As far as I can see from the Bill, there is no machinery by which a Royal Borough could apply for its charter. The Bill abolishes the charter and with the


charter go all the rights, prerogatives and privileges and the mayor. In my constituency a particularly difficult situation is created. Because of the traffic conditions in London, Windsor is becoming more and more the focus for State occasions. I prophesied this in the debate on the Civil List and my words have proved to be correct. We would have liked to have a mayor of Windsor who was responsible for the duties attached to these great occasions in the town. As I understand it, unless the Government change their mind the only way that could be achieved would be for the district to have a joint Maidenhead and Windsor mayor and to give up once and for all the possibility of having a mayor for this very ancient and historic Royal Borough of New Windsor, which is the only Royal Borough in which the sovereign resides.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development to think carefully about some of these details. I have referred only to my own constituency because it is the only one about which I know, but there are special historical associations attached to Windsor and in view of this I ask him to think again.
Why is the Royal Prerogative introduced into Part III? I always understood that the Royal Prerogative ran without being included in a Statute. I am confident that the Royal Prerogative would never be used to override the rights of hon. Members from either side of the House in their own constituencies, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree.

Mr. Graham Page: I shall dispose first of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn). Even if the Amendments were accepted they would not permit an application for borough status by an existing borough that was not coincident with the whole district. Application for borough status can only be made under the Bill by the full district. That does not mean that the boroughs which will now be absorbed into the new districts cannot retain their existing charters in the form that they can retain their mayoralty. This matter is not before the House but I can assure my hon. Friend that consultation papers have gone out to local authorities on the

subject and we are hoping to move Amendments in another place to deal with the matter.
On the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), the Bill recognises the importance of the petition for a charter and that the resolution of it should be taken only after advance notice of the meeting at which the resolution is to be proposed. It must then be carried by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting on the resolution, but it must be a decision taken by the new district council as a whole. It should not, as my hon. Friend wishes, be subject to a veto by anything exceeding one-third of those members of the new district council who represent an area of a borough which is taken into the new district.
An example is sufficient to show the absurdity of the proposition that a small component part of a district should be able to veto the wishes of the district as a whole. I take the example of the district which is based on Ashford in Kent. The total population of the district will be about 79,000, of which Ashford urban district is about 35,000. If the district council as a whole wished to apply for borough status it could do so, if my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted, only if the resolution were supported by two-thirds of those representatives of the existing borough of Tenterden, which has a population of only 6,000, who actually vote in the resolution. An even more ridiculous result would be that under the Amendment, if none of the Tenterden councillors voted, it would amount to a veto of the application by the district as a whole for its charter.
Under Amendment No. 1183 there would be further anomalies. If a new district contained two or more existing boroughs my hon. Friend would allow it to petition for borough charter only if more than half the electors of the new district lived in one or other of the existing boroughs at the time the Bill became an Act. The power to petition would therefore be frozen at the moment the Bill was enacted. No matter what the wishes of the new district council may be, then or later, no matter what the views of those who represented the existing boroughs may be, no matter what the views of the electors of the boroughs or the district may be, all that would be


necessary under the Amendment would be for the majority of local government electors to live at the moment of enactment in areas which have been given borough status in the past. That would be an impossible position.
I give one more example of the absurdity of the situation. District No. 5 contains two existing boroughs, Faversham and Queenborough in Sheppey, as well as Sittingbourne and Milton urban districts and Swale rural district. The population of the two boroughs is only 46,000 out of a total of 100,000 in the district so that the district would be debarred from petitioning for borough status merely on those population figures. It is a principle of the Bill that all districts alike shall have the same choice whether or not to apply for borough status. The decision whether or not to apply for borough status shall rest with the council of the new district and shall not be subject to any veto by particular parts of that district, or limited by the chance distribution of population in 1972, a distribution which might change considerably in later years. Under the Bill a district council may decide at any time to apply for borough status without any repercussion as would happen if my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted.
I come to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter). As I understand it, it would provide for a decision by a simple majority of all councillors instead of a two-thirds' majority of those attending and voting at the council. I admit that he has precedent partly on his side. Section 129 of the Local Government Act, 1933, obliged a council to hold two special meetings and to pass the necessary resolution at each of them by
a majority of the whole number of members of the council"—
if it wished to apply for borough status. We wish to revise that because local councils do conduct, and should conduct, their business in council, and a vote in council should not be nullified by absentees. It should not be necessary to search out those councillors who do not attend to ensure that a majority of the councillors are in favour of such a resolution.
Let the council conduct its business in the proper way, in council with a vote

of those present. The matter is important enough for the vote to have to be carried by two thirds instead of a simple majority. I ask the House therefore to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Minister clarify the matter? The group of Amendments deals with the position of a new district which comprises a borough and other areas, some of which may have had a charter in the past and some of which may not. In the new circumstances will the new district council be able to claim under the charter all the rights that one of the constituents of the district had in the past, or will it be considered that a new situation has arisen? In particular, would a new district be able to claim the title "City" and the title "Lord Mayor" and "Right Honourable" for its chief citizen?

Mr. Page: I believe that the first thing the new district would do would be to include in its petition the privileges and dignities which any boroughs within it already held by their charter. I imagine that the ancient charter for York includes many privileges which would be included in the new charter for the district based on York. I am sure that the intention is that they should be included in the new charter.
The word "City" is normally granted by letters patent and not included in the charter, but I am sure that it would be the wish of Her Majesty to issue letters patent to confirm the word "City" if it were required by districts in which a city is to be embodied.

Dr. Glyn: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend very much for what he has said about reconsidering the matter in another place. We are all most grateful.

Mr. George Wallace: When the Government move their Amendment in another place, will they list all the privileges and rights?

Mr. Page: I do not think it would be right to list them. There are so many varieties of names of officials and privileges granted that we might miss some and by expressing some exclude the others.

Mr. More: I thank my hon. Friend for the attention he has given to the subject. While he was speaking I tried to follow his examples, such as those in Kent. Although I have always seen the logic of the Government's proposals, I still take the view that it would be wrong and an absurdity to give mayoral status in the case of Ashford, for example, to a new district which comprises the existing borough of Tenterden. I have the feeling that the whole of the Government's scheme is inspired by the idea that there is something derogatory in the position of a chairman of a council compared with a mayor. That has never been so in the past, and I see no reason why it should be so in the future. We have lived very happily with the present position in my part of the world, and I beg my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter again, before the Bill goes to another place.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

CHAIRMAN

Mr. John Pardoe: I beg to move Amendment No. 139, in page 4, line 8, leave out 'by the council'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are to discuss Amendments No. 265, in page 4, line 8, leave out
'by the council from among the councillors
and insert:
'either by the council from among the councillors or by the local government electors for that area'.

No. 140, in line 8, at end insert:
by the council, or, if the council so decides, by a poll of the local government electors for that area in accordance with such regulations as shall from time to time be made by the Secretary of State'.

No. 970, in line 8, at end insert:
'except where, by established practice, the Lord Mayor or Mayor is elected from outside the body of the Council every fifth year'.

No. 157, in Schedule 2, page 205, line 37, leave out 'by the council'.

No. 159, in page 205, line 39, at end insert:
'by the Council, or, if the Council so decides by a poll of the local government electors for that area in accordance with such regulations as shall from time to time be made by the Secretary of State'

and No. 217, in Clause 24, page 13, line 21, leave out 'by the Council'.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe: Amendment No. 139 is in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), as are Amendments Nos.140, 157 and 159, and Amendment No. 265 is in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.
Our Amendments are basically to do the same thing. My hon. and learned Friend was looking at the matter from the point of view of Welsh local government and I am looking at it from the point of view of local government in both England and Wales. The question is how the chairman of a council—whatever he may be called; the head of the local authority—should be elected or chosen Subsection (1) says:
The chairman of a principal council shall be elected annually by the council from among the councillors.
We seek to introduce into that rather narrow definition of how the local government leader should be chosen a rather wider choice for local authorities.
The present system of selection can be described as Buggins's turn. The trouble is that almost any councillor, no matter what his talents or merit, would eventually become chairman of the council or mayor under the old system. There is a good case for ensuring that that system is ended, and that local councils at least have a choice of introducing an entirely new system.
An important part of any organisation, whether a company, political party or local authority, is the man at the head. Who is the head of local government? I guarantee that if local electors in the majority of council areas were asked the name of the head of local government in their area they would not know. No kudos attaches to the name. There are those who write off many of our mayors as simply coat hangers for the regalia of office. That is a tragedy for the institution of local government.
The qualifications a man or woman who wishes to head a local authority should have are open to question. We obviously do not want a man who wants to rule a town in the narrowest and more power-seeking sense of the word "rule". At the other end of the scale, we do not


want a man who wants the mere distinction of the office. Unfortunately, there are all too many such men. We want someone in between the two. What do we have in all too many cases? Here I quote from a pamphlet, "The Mayor and Aldermen and Councillors", written by Professor Brian Keith Lucas, who will be known to many hon. Members as a great authority on local government. He described the present head of local government as
a Father Christmas figure, who has become in many authorities a figure of fun, ridiculed for his pomposity and self-importance. This comic figure of the cartoon and caricature is no doubt unjust to a great many hardworking and sincere men and women who after years of inconspicuous and unpaid service have at last reached the mayoral chair, but there is enough truth in it to lead us to ask whether this is really the ideal pattern for the head of great local authorities responsible for millions of pounds of public money.
That is the basic question in the Amendments. The present system ensures that the chairman of a local authority, the mayor or whatever he may be, has no real responsibility apart from chairing the monthly council meeting. Indeed, the system is designed to deprive the chairman of any real power or authority. It is a kind of rot a system in which the principle of Buggins's turn operates.
I do not believe that the head of local government can ever exercise real authority on behalf of the electors unless he is seen to have, or to call in aid, the authority of democratic choice, and that is what the Amendment seeks to give him. He has no authority within the council nor over its services.
What do we want to do with local government by the Bill? Although there are differences separating the three parties and almost every individual Member on the basic realities and purposes of local government, I suspect that we are all united in wishing, first, that we could create more interest in local government; secondly, that more people would think local government important enough to vote in its elections; thirdly, that there were more contests. I realise that in areas where local government is fought on primarily political lines, which is not the case in my own county of Cornwall, there tend to be rather more contests than in areas where elections are almost entirely a matter of one independent against another.
Lastly, we want to bring into local government far more people of real ability. The Bill sets out with these aims. However, it is extremely suspect in this matter and I have real fears that those who go for responsible offices in local government will not be of a sufficiently high calibre or of the calibre we want so as to get more interest in local government elections, to persuade people that local government is important not only for them to vote for but for them to stand for.
We should dramatise the rôle of local government. We should focus attention on the person who is the head of the local council. It would be foolish to suggest that our present system, under which we shear the head of a local council of virtually all power and authority, is necessarily the best. In France ever since Napoleonic times the mayor has been a person of power, influence and authority within his community. He means something to electors.
The head of a State in the United States is the governor. He is directly elected, not necessarily from among those who are already members of the local State senate. He can be elected from any of the electors in the State. Under that system, attention is focussed on the problems of local government and on the governor. In New York, whatever we may think of the succession of mayors who have failed to cope with the appalling problems of that terrible dustbin of a city, the direct election of the mayor, as in other American cities, focuses attention on the local problems and dramatises the democratic element in local government.
These Amendments do not seek to force anything on local authorities, as they would still retain a choice. All that we are asking the Government to do is to say to local authorities "You have the power to decide whether you will go on with the old system, which has been tried for years, whereby you choose from existing councillors the chairman or mayor, with everybody having a turn, or you can decide to have an entirely new system. This is your decision. If you like, you can decide to have your mayor or chairman directly elected by the electors."
I go further and say that this is symptomatic of our desire that local councils should have the power to decide their own


constitution. It may sound a rather horrifying thought when one considers the variety of constitutions that would arise throughout the country; but why not? What harm would this do? There is no reason to suppose that we have the best constitution for local authority that man can devise. The constitution may be experimented with, and I suggest that experiments by local authorities would help considerably to produce a better model and a better standard.
I shall be interested to hear the official objections from the Government. I suspect that they will not be isolated objections from a Conservative Government, but of the kind which would be raised by virtually any Government in power and by the political establishment. However, this is the first time that the matter has been raised in the House. There will be the objections that the political parties, where the parties are a major force in local government, would put up the same people that they would have put up anyway. There would have to be a longer term than one year. Clearly, it would not be possible for the chairman to exercise the amount of authority which I am saying he would gain from the direct electoral choice of the people unless he had a term of three or four years. That is the assumption on which the Amendments are based.
I hope that the Government will for the first time put forward their reasons for not wishing to go along with this interesting suggestion. I presume that they will not accept the Amendments. This suggestion would dramatically increase the interest which local people take in their local authorities and local elections.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I hope that the Government will resist the temptation to accept the Amendment, which embodies a dangerous suggestion. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has studied American local government. If he has done so, I am sure he rapidly came to the conclusion that one of the reasons for the weakness of American local government is the variety of constitutions and the differences of organisation.
God forbid that we should have a series of Mayor Daleys in Britain. The hon. Member seemed to favour the idea

of the "boss mayor", the leader of the council who is directly elected and all-powerful. The last thing I want to see in local government is the type of American system which is now in operation in, for example, Chicago. Far from being democratic, that system is very much the opposite.
There was some confusion of thought in the hon. Member's speech. In nearly all local authorities, certainly in the great cities and boroughs, two different people are involved, one being the leader of the council and the other the mayor, or titular head. In most places the mayor changes every year and selection is based on seniority, which is something I have been fighting against for a long time. However, the function of a mayor in a councilis, first, to control the council meetings and, secondly, to attend certain civic duties and wander around making after dinner speeches in his robes. That is a useful purpose. He is a different person, and needs to be so, from the leader of the council, who either by himself, depending on the type of council, or in co-operation with many of his colleagues is responsible for policy making. I suspect that in some of our local authorities we have something approaching the "Mayor Daley", the leader of the council who has been there a long time, but he is not usually the chairman or mayor.
I see what the Liberal Party wants from these Amendments. From a Liberal point of view it might be a good idea However, to have a popular election of a leader who would be in office for three or four years would be dangerous and lead to far more undemocratic local government than we now have. I hope that the Government will resist these Amendments.

Mr. George Wallace: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) have put two different points of view. I rise to put the ideal compromise to the whole situation.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North did not mention Amendment No. 970. The City of Norwich has many ancient privileges which I am glad to be reassured will be retained. We have a custom and a motto in Norfolk called "Do different". In every fifth year the council


by agreement approaches someone from outside the council who has rendered distinguished service to the district over the years to be the Lord Mayor for that year. This tradition is followed with great care. From time to time various prominent people have occupied the office and added great dignity to it with great effect. They have included a famous gynaecologist, and the present Lord Mayor is a well-known trade unionist with an international background, who has been elected from completely outside the council.

4.30 p.m.

In no case has the privilege ever been abused. There has been complete control, and the system has added dignity to the office. There has also been a valuable side effect. By this means we are able to operate our own local honours list, honouring people who may not be generally known apart from their workfor the public and to whom we are thus able to give some recognition. For instance, some years ago it was desired to render some mark of respect to a lady who had done great work on behalf of old people. She died before she could be appointed, but her husband, who had done similar work, was appointed. This is an ideal system, and I hope it will be accepted by the Government, so that every fifth year some prominent person from outside the council is appointed, the mayor being selected by agreement on other occasions. In Norwich there is no major row between the political parties on this issue.

I recognise that the Amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee aroused one great fear. It was that it would result in the undemocratic situation which—let us face it—arises in both political parties when there is a dead heat on the council and the party in power up to that point selects someone from outside the council to maintain its majority. I do not support that sort of thing, but I strongly support the system we have in Norwich by which a prominent citizen is selected. Here is a proposal which the Government could reasonably accept and which goes part of the way to meet the argument of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. Judging by the nods which I am getting from the end of the Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen would not disagree. I ask the Govern-

ment carefully to consider an idea which has already worked successfully.

Mr David Stoddart: As an exercise in gimmickry, the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) is not bad, but as an exercise in common sense and logic it stinks. The powers and duties conferred by the Bill are given to the council, and the council alone, and what I am concerned about is that there should be no division in those powers and that it should not be thought that there is any division in those powers.
Let there be no mistake: our whole concept of Government and local government rests on a corporate body having power and on no one person having power. Any proposal to alter that arrangement, even with the consent of the local authority concerned, could drive a wedge into a system which has served us well for a long time. Let us imagine a situation in which a council had foolishly decided to have a mayor who was elected by people outside the council and in which he had personal power. On many issues of controversy there would be a dispute between the council and that man who had been given separate powers by the people. We have heard of Prime Ministers appealing to the people over the heads of Parliament and his party, and we know what trouble that can cause. From my considerable experience of local government I know that such divisions can arise, and they cause a great deal of heart-searching.
It must be understood that local authorities appoint a mayor or a chairman not to give him power and not particularly to give him free drinks or free meals, but to guide them at their meetings. They give him no especial power other than that of controlling their meetings, and that is his principal duty. Councillors elect a person from among themselves because they assume that he has some experience of council work, will know the councillors through having served on the council, will know their whims and quirks and will be able to deal with them reasonably if they get out of line. They elect someone who knows the score and is able to make a contribution from the chair. Someone appointed from outside would not necessarily have that experience and would not necessarily


have the confidence of the councillors whom he was supposed to control.
I see many dangers in the system proposed by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. He mentioned the United States system. The American system simply would not work here. Certainly I should not want it. I have seen it working in some towns and I should hate our towns to be run on the same lines. I should not like to see the mayors of our towns responsible for appointing police chiefs, for instance, so that one day a man was a constable on the beat and the next the chief constable. But that is what may happen when one man has this power.
I know that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North is not advocating that, but what he is suggesting could be the thin end of the wedge to ending our system of local government in the most unlikely event of the Liberal Party becoming the Government. As a great lover of the British constitution and with great respect for the existing system of local government and for the job that authorities have done since 1888, a system which has proved its worth over a long time, I do not want it to be changed by the sort of gimmickry solution that the hon. Gentleman has proposed.

Mr. John Silkin: I rarely disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart), but I find myself reluctantly impelled to do so on this occasion. I regard the Amendment not as an exercise in gimmickry but as an exercise in studied moderation. I am astonished that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) did not take his views a little further.
Why not elect the Leader of the Liberal Party, for example?

Mr. Pardoe: We did.

Mr. Silkin: Perhaps because he would have lost his deposit. If the Leader of the Conservative Party were to be elected, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman might not be returned. If we were all to elect the Leader of the Labour Party, he would certainly be returned, and to the seat at present occupied so illustriously by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr.Graham Page).
The truth is that this Amendment is concerned with altering the whole of the British constitution, in so far as it affects local government, in the form of a small, theoretical Amendment. What was needed was for the hon. Member or some of his colleagues to have been present in Committee dealing with this Bill. I wish that they had been. We had 51 sittings in which they would have been able to contribute their wisdom—

Mr. Pardoe: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be issuing a word of criticism upon members of my party, saying that they would not have wished to sit as members of the Committee. The members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party always wish to be present on every Committee. It is the studious intention and corruption of the two-party system which prevents them from doing so.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is on a very bad point on this occasion. This was a large Committee, and the Liberal Party was entitled, as of right, to approach the Committee of Selection and ask to be included. Whether this is so, it is a great pity that members of that party were not present during our deliberations, even in the Public Gallery. That might have helped. Had they been present they could have put forward these new and interesting ideas about the whole change in local government, and I have no doubt that we would have listened with considerable respect and interest. I am afraid that this will not do. There are Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member a little later which, he will be delighted to hear, I might be willing to support, but not this one.
As for the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace); that will not do either. It will not do because I can suggest a compromise on his compromise. Let the illustrious son of Norwich or wherever he may be who wants to become Lord Mayor in the fifth year stand for the council and stand his turn with everyone else. If he is as illustrious as my hon. Friend thinks he is then every fifth year he may be elected.

Mr. Wallace: That sounds all very well, but supposing the unfortunate man


does not belong to the right political party? He has had it.

Mr. Silkin: If he is as illustrious as all that I have no doubt he will get all-party support. There are precedents when members of the minority party have been chosen as mayors or chairmen by the majority party. It depends very much on how illustrious the citizen is. But in any event there are other ways in which a local authority can honour its distinguished sons. There are things such as public dinners, making a person a freeman, and so on. An illustrious citizen of any local authority does not need to be made lord mayor, mayor or chairman to show that he is illustrious. For those reasons, although I would not advise my hon. Friends either way, they must please themselves, I think I have made clear to the House which way I have decided.

Mr. Graham Page: I must mildly reprimand the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). Throughout these 51 sittings in Committee and the Report stage so far he and I have played this cool. Although we still find ourselves in agreement on many things across the Dispatch Box, he should not try to stir up party anger with the Liberals on an occasion like this. All that is being suggested in these Amendments, apart from that of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), is to make the election of a mayor in England and Wales or the chairman of a district an American mayoral or presidential type of election but only if the council decides to hand over its duties to the public.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) frankly admitted that his purpose was to "dramatise the headship of the local authority" "Headship" sounded rather tribal to me. Perhaps on occasions the election of a mayor looks rather tribal. If the House were to accept the idea that the local council should ask the public to elect its chairman, then, logically, the House should ask the whole electorate to choose Mr. Speaker because the mayor is first and foremost the chairman of a statutory body.
Under the Local Government Act, 1933, and the London Government Act, 1963, the chairman or mayor is elected

by the council from among the aldermen or councillors or persons qualified to be councillors. In Committee it was almost unanimously the view that we should alter the law in that respect and that every member of the council including the most important member, the mayor, should be elected by and be responsible to the public. It is arguable that as he is the head of the local community we should let the local electorate decide who should be its civic leader. It may be said that it is a reasonable extension of local democracy, with full safeguards, because the council could prevent the public from doing it if wants to do it itself.

4.45 p.m.

The chairman is not just the first citizen, a civic leader, he is also the chairman of the council, a statutory body with executive responsibilities for essential services and he has a casting vote in that body. As the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) said, he is there to guide the council at its meetings. These Amendments would divorce him from the council and set him up merely as the ceremonial and social head of the community rather than as chairman of the council. That is not to say that the social and ceremonial aspects of the chairman's work are unimportant. They have a crucial importance in the choice of a chairman. I doubt whether the public is in so good a position as members of the council to judge whether candidates for the chairmanship or mayoralty possess the necessary qualifications to be both a good social and ceremonial leader and a good chairman.

Some practical points also arise. There is the cost of the elections. If we adopt the first of the Amendments, there would have to be an election of the council and then a second election of the chairman or mayor. This leads me to Amendment No. 265, which partially solves that delay point but at the expense of the Amendment made to the Bill in Committee. Under Amendment No. 265 the chairman or mayor of a council is elected annually either by the council, from among the councillors, or by the local government electors for the area. I assume that means that someone would decide before the council elections which way it was to be done so that the whole thing could be held at one and the same


time. This could only make sense if it is intended, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North admitted, as the means of introducing something entirely new to the constitution—the American style of mayor, a glamorous figure with his own executive powers who overshadows the council. As the hon. Member for Swindon said, very well, this would be contrary to the traditions of our system of local government.

Mr. Pardoe: And a good thing too.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member says "And a good thing, too", but we are not endeavouring in the Bill to alter the whole constitution in that way. For my part, I think it would be a sad day if we ever do.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North put forward an Amendment which I appreciate is aimed at safeguarding the position of places like Norwich, which has established a practice of electing every few years, as lord mayor or mayor, a person who is not a councillor. In Norwich this is not a practice which is exactly hoary with age; it has only been adopted over the past 20 years, and in face of what was decided in Committee, what I believe will be the wish of the House, that every member of the council should be directly selected and directly answerable to the local electorate, it would be unwise to make this exception.
The reason for resisting Amendment No. 970, in the name of the hon. Member for Norwich, North, springs from the principle of democracy. It in no way reflects on anybody who is now, or who in the past has been lord mayor of that city. Districts with borough status will be able to honour their non-councillors under the provisions of another part of the Bill by making them honorary freeman. We have now accepted the principle that all members of the council shall be directly answerable to the electorate. It would be the extreme of inconsistency to breach that principle in the case of the person who procedurally is the most important person on the council.

Mr. Pardoe: I should like to make one or two comments about what has been said in this short debate. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) said that this was an exercise in gim-

mickry and stank. In my view the only thing that stinks in this House is the pool of stagnant Conservatism that runs round certain Members on the Opposition benches.
This is a new idea, and this is the first time it has been aired in this House I take the point put forward by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) about the division of power—he thinks an unhappy division—between the council which is supposed to be the fount of all wisdom and the directly-elected chairman or mayor, but I regard the division of power as an essential factor in a democratic system.
The point has been made that with a two-party system there is often a situation where there is virtually no choice because the individual concerned does not happen to belong to the right party in the area in which he lives. If a man is a Conservative and lives in Durham there is no hope of his ever becoming mayor or even of getting on the council. [Hon Members: "Oh."] In my view the Durham Council is a self-perpetuating body of an incredibly incompetent sort—rather like the Surrey County Council, which I regard as the worst county council in the world. What we need is a way in which individual electors can break out of the two-party arrangement in an area. I feel that we could break through this situation if we were to set up a tribune of the people by means of a direct election.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) said that I was confusing the two things. He thought I was confusing the mayor—who is simply a chairman of the council who presides over council meetings, goes to dinners and makes speeches—with something else. But here the hon. Gentleman gave the game away. He indicated that such an all-powerful super-boss of the cities already existed—that we have him because he is put there as part of the party caucus; in other words, as leader of the majority group on the council. This is quite true.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Mayor Daley. That is an easy name to throw out in this connection. I will not mention the names of certain local government bosses who have been in the newspaper recently because it would not necessarily


be right to use parliamentary privilege to do so, but I am not at all sure that I would not rather be run by a council headed by Mayor Daley than by some of the names which have been mentioned recently in our newspapers. If we are talking about the American scene we must mention not only figures like Mayor Daley, but also La Guardia, Governor Stevenson, rather than Governor Reagan, who may perhaps not be an ideal example. The system can throw up some first-class people.
I do not accept the Government's answer that this idea must be thrown out because it would totally change the whole concept of English local government. As I interjected in a Minister's speech a little earlier "And a good thing too!" The fact is that local government is not democratic, it does not adequately represent the interest of people at local level, and I believe that by superimposing this system of direct election of a tribune of the people, the system could be made far more democratic than it is at the moment.
Since in a sense this is an exploratory Amendment in which I was seeking to discover the reasons why the political establishment were against this extension of democracy, and since we have now heard those reasons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 312, in page 4, line 19, at end insert:
(2) If, apart from section 4(3) above or section 6(2) below, the person presiding at the meeting would have ceased to be a member of the council, he shall not be entitled to vote in the election except in accordance with subsection (3) below.
The relevant Amendments to be discussed with this Amendment are No. 313, in line 21, leave out from "vote" to end of line 22 and insert "in addition to any other vote he may have"

No. 316, in page 9, line 14, in Clause 16, at end insert:
'and if, apart from subsection (6) below, the person presiding at the meeting would have ceased to be a member of the parish council he shall not be entitled to vote in the election

except in accordance with subsection (3) below".
(3) In the case of an equality of votes in the election of a chairman the person presiding at the meeting shall give a casting vote in addition to any other vote he may have.

No. 577, in page 206, line 14, in Schedule 2, at end insert:
(2) If, apart from paragraph 2(3) above or paragraph 4(2) below, the person presiding at the meeting would have ceased to be a member of the council, he shall not be entitled to vote in the election except in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) below.

No. 578, in page 206, line 18, leave out from "vote" to end of line 19 and insert "in addition to any other vote he may have".

No. 902, in page 206, line 43, at end insert "(whether or not he continues until that time to be a councillor)".

No. 903, in page 207, line 5, at end insert "under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 below".

No. 904, in page 241, line 31, in Schedule 12, after "if" insert "at that time he remains a councillor or an alderman and is".

And No. 559, in page 250, line 10, at beginning insert "Subject to those provisions".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): That is agreeable to me, but the House will understand that we are dealing with Amendments Nos. 312 and 313 now. We shall deal with the others when they arise later on the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Page: I am obliged. The need for these Amendments arises because although councillors when defeated at the polls resign their seats four days after the poll, those who are chairmen, vice-chairmen, mayors and deputy mayors retain their position until their successors are appointed. Therefore, at the meeting at which their successors are appointed they are entitled to vote. We are following the principle that only those put there as councillors by the electorate should be entitled to take part in a vote on the council. The Amendment would remove the right of the chairmen, vice-chairmen, mayors or deputy mayors to vote in the new council unless a casting vote were necessary and then the person presiding, who may be the previous chairman or vice-chairman, should have the casting vote—but only because he was presiding as chairman,


not because he was a councillor in the previous council.
Amendments Nos. 902 to 904 deal with a rather different situation in London, but they bring the London boroughs into line with the rest of the country.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 313, in page 4, line 21, leave out from 'vote' to end of line 22 and insert 'in addition to any other vote he may have'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 6

VICE-CHAIRMAN

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 314, in page 4, line 33 at end insert—
(4) A principal council may pay the vice-chairman for the purpose of enabling him to meet the expenses of his office such allowance as the council think reasonable.

With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House I wonder if we could discuss at the same time Amendments No. 317, in page 14, line 11, at end insert—
(4) A principal council may pay the vice-chairman for the purpose of enabling him to meet the expenses of his office such allowance as the council think reasonable.

No. 579, in page 72, line 22, leave out from 'chairman' to 'deputy' in line 23 and insert—
'or vice-chairman and in the case of the Greater London Council the office of'.

No. 599, in page 207, line 5, at end insert—
(4) A London borough council may pay the deputy mayor such allowance as the council think reasonable for the purpose of enabling him to meet the expenses of his office.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That will be in order provided the House agrees, but on the same conditions as before, discussing them now but deciding upon them in their turn as they occur on the Order Paper.

Mr. Graham Page: These Amendments, Nos. 304, 317, 599 empower county councils, London borough councils, district councils, and district councils with the status of a borough, to pay their vice-chairmen or, as the case may be, their deputy mayors, allowances to meet

the expenses of their office. The amount of the allowance would be fixed by the council. I am sure the hon. and right hon. Members will know from experience of their constituencies the amount of social and ceremonial work which a vice-chairman or a deputy mayor is called upon to do.
There is no reason why a deputy, merely because he is a deputy, should meet the expenses of his office out of his own pocket; there is no greater reason why he should than that the chairman should. If he is to carry out the duties of his office as a deputy he should be entitled to an allowance for doing so. It would be, of course, at the discretion of the council both to grant the allowance and to fix the amount of it. The Amendments provide for the payment of the allowance only to one vice-chairman or deputy mayor of a council. I do not think there is any need to go further. If we did I think it would encourage a proliferation of appointments and that we would get the Gilbertian situation where everyone is somebody and no one is anybody.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

TERM OF OFFICE AND RETIREMENT OF COUNCILLORS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the monumental grouping.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, Amendment No. 960, in page 4, line 36, at end insert:


'(1A) For the purposes of the election of councillors—

(a) every county shall be divided into electoral divisions, each returning (subject to paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act) one councillor;
(b) every metropolitan district shall be divided into wards, each returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three; and
(c) every non-metropolitan district shall be divided into wards each returning such number of councillors as may be provided by an
order under the said paragraph 3 or under or by virtue of the following provisions of this section or Schedule 9 to this Act;
and there shall be a separate election for each electoral division or ward'.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: On a point of order. Two of


us rose to speak on the previous Amendments, but you were not looking at the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and just went on. What is the position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that was so I would tell the hon. Member that that does sometimes happen. The House does not realise, I think, that if someone wishes to catch my eye and he is in any doubt that he is succeeding he should address the Chair. That always used to be done. It is not always done nowadays. Consequently, the Chaircan miss someone. I am sorry it should have happened, but I do not think I can go back now because I have collected the voices and a decision has been taken on that Amendment. If hon. Members will do that, if they will just call "Mr. Deputy Speaker" in a good firm voice I shall be sure to hear them.

Mr. Carlisle: I understand that it would be convenient to the House if all the various Amendments which you have linked with Amendment No. 960 should be taken together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. They are:

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, leave out 'three' and insert 'two';

Amendment No. 670, in page 4, line 37, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4) and insert:
(2) The ordinary election of county and of district councillors shall take place in 1973 and every second year thereafter. Their term of office shall be four years except as provided in subsection (3) below and one-half, being those who have been councillors for the longest time without re-election, shall retire in every ordinary year of election of such councillors other than in 1973 on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and in and after 1975 the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire.
(3) In 1975 there shall retire one-half of the councillors elected in 1973, such half being designated by reference to electoral divisions and wards under a scheme specified in an order made by the Secretary of State after carrying out such consultations as he thinks appropriate.

No. 876, in page 5, line 5, at beginning insert:
Subject to the provisions of any Order made pursuant to the proviso to subsection (4) of this section.

No. 918, in page 5, line 5 [Clause 7], after 'of', insert 'metropolitan'.

No. 1061, in page 5, line 6, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.

No. 1062, in page 5, line 6, after 'every', insert 'second'.

No. 1063, in page 5, line 6, leave out 'other than a year of election of county councillors'.

No. 919, in page 5, line 9, after second 'of', insert 'metropolitan'.

No. 1064, in page 5, line 9, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half'.

No. 920, in page 5, line 10, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a metropolitan'.

No. 146, in page 5, line 10, after 'district', insert 'if more than one'.

No. 921, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'other than 1973'.

No. 1068, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:
'(5) A non-metropolitan district council may at any time in pursuance of the requisite resolution request the Secretary of State to provide—
(a) for a system of whole council elections, that is to say, the holding of the ordinary elections of all the councillors of the district simultaneously; or
(b) for a system of elections by thirds, that is to say, the election of one-third, as nearly as may be, of the councillors of the district at the ordinary elections of such councillors in any year;
indicating in the case of a request under paragraph (b) above, those areas, if any, in which there should, and those, if any, in which there should not, be wards each returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three.
In this subsection"the requisite resolution" means in the case of a resolution passed before 1st April 1974 a resolution passed by a majority, and in the case of a resolution passed on or after that date a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds, of the members voting thereon at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose with notice of the object.
(6) Where the Secretary of State receives a request under subsection (5)(a) above from a district council or does not before 1st April, 1974 receive a request from a district council under subsection (5)(b) above, he may make an order providing for the ordinary elections of all the district councillors to be held simultaneously and the order may contain the like provision, and shall be treated, as if made under section 53 below.
(7) Where the Secretary of State receives a request under subsection (5)(b) above from a district council he may ask the English Commission to make proposals in the light of the request with respect to—
(a) the number, boundaries and names of the wards into which the district should be divided and the number of councillors to be elected for each ward;
(b) the order of retirement of councillors elected for wards not returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three;


and, where the Commission have not completed their review of the electoral arrangements for the district under Schedule 9 to this Act, they shall as part of that review consider the proposals to be made under this subsection and, in any other case, sections 54, 62 and 63 below shall apply to the consideration by the Commission of any such proposals as they apply to their conduct of a review under section 52 below and any such proposals shall be treated as if made under section 53 below.
(8) The ordinary election of non-metropolitan district councillors shall take place—
(a) except where an order is in force providing for the election of district councillors by thirds, in 1973, 1976, 1979 and every fourth year thereafter; and
(b) where such an order is in force, in the year when the order comes into force and every year thereafter other than a year of election of county councillors.
(9) The following provisions of this sub section shall, subject to the provisions of any order made under or by virtue of this section, have effect with respect to non-metropolitan district councillors:—
(a) their term of office shall be three years in the case of the councillors elected at the ordinary elections in 1973 and 1976 and four years in the case of those elected at ordinary elections held thereafter;
(b) except where an order is in force providing for the election of councillors by thirds, the whole number of councillors shall retire together in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and in or after 1976 the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire; and
(c) where such an order is in force, one-third of the whole number of councillors in each ward returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three and, as nearly as may be, one-third of the whole number of the councillors in the other wards, being those who have been councillors of the district for the longest time without re-election, shall retire in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and in every such year the newly elected councillors shal come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire'.

Amendments to Amendment No. 1068, (a) in line 5, leave out 'thirds' and insert 'halves'; (b) in line 5, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half'; (c) in line 10, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'; (d) in line 27, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'; (e) in line 36, leave out 'thirds' and insert 'halves'; (f) in line 36, leave out '1976, 1979' and insert '1975'; (g) in line 36, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'second'; (h) in line 38, after

'every', insert 'second'; (i) in line 38, leave out 'other than a year of election of county councillors'; (j) in line 42, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'; (k) in line 3, leave out 'and 1976'; (1) in line 44, at end insert:
'except that an order providing for the election of councillors by halves may extend or reduce the initial term of office of any such councillor by one or two years'.
(m) in line 46, leave out 'thirds' and insert 'halves'; (n) in line 48, leave out '1976' and insert '1975'; (o) in line 50, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half; (p) in line 51, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'; (q) in line 52, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half'.

No. 671, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:
The Secretary of State after such consultation as he considers appropriate, may by order extend or reduce the term of office of county or district councillors by one or more years in all or any local government areas but no such order shall be effective unless it has first been approved by both House of Parliament.

No. 877, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:
Provided that where the Secretary of State, on request made by a resolution of a district council, passed by not less than two-thirds of the members voting on the resolution, considers that it would be expedient to provide for the simultaneous retirement of all the councillors for that district, he may by Order give directions to that effect and an Order giving such directions as aforesaid shall provide for all matters necessary or proper for giving effect thereto.

No. 878, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:
(5) Where any such Order has been made with respect to the simultaneous retirement of district councillors the Secretary of State may, on the like request, by order rescind the first-mentioned Order and the rescinding Order shall provide for all matters necessary or proper for giving effect thereto.

No. 967, in page 5, line 16, at end add:
'(5) In the case of a district council which has all or some of its wards returning a number of councillors not divisible by three, the term of office shall be four years and one-third or as near as may be, of the whole number of councillors of the district, or where there are a number of councillors representing a ward, of each ward, being those who have been councillors for the longest time without re-election, shall retire in every ordinary year of election of such councillors other than 1973 on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillor and in and after 1975 the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire; and the Secretary of State shall


determine the order in which councillors shall retire after the first election in 1973'.

No. 923, in page 5, line 17, leave out Clause 8.

No. 266, in page 5, line 20, after 'Act)', insert 'more than'.

No. 150, in page 5, line 21, at end insert 'one councillor or.

No. 869, in page 5, leave out line 22 and insert 'one councillor'.

No. 672, in page 5, line 22, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

No. 673, in page 5, line 24, at end insert:
(2) The council of a non-metropolitan district may, by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the members voting thereon at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose with notice of the object, request the Secretary of State to provide—
(a) for the division of the district or pan thereof into wards returning a number of councillors which, in the case of some or all of the wards, is not divisible by two; or
(b) for the revocation of any such provision and for the division of the district into wards, each returning a number of councillors which is divisible by two.
(3) On receipt of a request under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall request the English Commission to make proposals to him in accordance with paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of that subsection as the case may require; and any proposals so made shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if made under section 53(1) below.

No. 933, in page 9, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) Subject to any provisions included in an order by virtue of section 69 below and to the provisions of paragraphs 11 and 11A of Schedule 3 to this Act, the ordinary elections of parish councillors shall take place in 1976, 1979 and every fourth year thereafter, their term of office shall be three years in the case of those elected at the ordinary elections in 1976 and four years in the case of those elected at ordinary elections held thereafter, and the whole number of parish councillors shall retire together in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire'.

No. 730, in page 209, line 14, after 'out', insert:
'either before or after the passing of this Act'.

No. 924, in page 209, line 19, leave out '8(a)' and insert '7(1A)(a)'.

No. 461, in page 209, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (1).

No. 925, in page 209, line 21, after 'ward', insert 'of a metropolitan district'.

No. 1065, in page 209, line 22, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half'.

No. 1066, in page 209, line 22, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.

No. 1067, in page 209, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 26.

No. 178, in page 212, line 6, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.

No. 179, in page 212, line 21, after '1974' insert 'or 1975'.

No. 180, in page 212, line 23, after '1974', insert 'or 1975'.

No. 181, in page 212, line 25, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.

No. 1046, in page 213, line 5, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.

No. 934, in page 213, line 46, leave out from 'councillors' to 'occurring' in line 1 on page 214.

No. 935, in page 214, line 1, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

No. 936, in page 214, line 6, leave out from 'councillors' to end of line 7.

No. 937, in page 214, line 8, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

No. 938, in page 22, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 28 and insert:
'When the following ordinary elections fall to be held in the same year, that is to say—
(a) the ordinary election of district councillors for any district ward; and
(b) the ordinary election or parish or community councillors for any parish or community, or any parish or community ward, which is co-extensive with or situated in that district ward;
the polls at those elections'.

No. 940, in page 233, line 39, leave out from 'considering' to the end of line 42 and insert:
'future electoral arrangements for the district and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.

No. 941, in page 234, line 1, after 'required', insert ' (a)'.

No. 942, in page 234, line 3, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 1 above


(whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.

No. 943, in page 234, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert:
'future electoral arrangements for the county and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.

No. 944, in page 234, line 15, after 'required' insert '(a)'.

No. 962, in page 234, line 17, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 3 above (whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.

No. 946, in page 235, line 35 [Schedule 10], leave out paragraph 7 and insert:
'7 On receipt of a report under paragraph 6 above the Secretary of State shall either make an order giving effect to any proposals of the Welsh Commission submitted with the report (whether as submitted or with modifications) or make an order providing for the continuation of the existing arrangements applicable to the community or communities in question'.

No. 947, in page 236, line 8, leave out from 'considering' to end of line 11 and insert:
'future electoral arrangements for the district and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.

No. 948, in page 236, line 21, after 'required', insert '(a)'.

No. 949, in page 236, line 23, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 10 above (whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.

No. 950, in page 236, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert:
'future electoral arrangements for the county and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.

No. 951, in page 236, line 36, after 'required', insert 'a)'.

No. 963, in page 236, line 38, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 13 above (whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.

No. 961, in page 14, line 14 [Clause 27], at end insert:

'(1A) For the purposes of the election of councillors—
(a) every county shall be divided into electoral divisions, each returning (subject to paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to this Act) one councillor; and
(b) every district shall be divided into wards each returning such number of councillors as may be provided by an order under the said paragraph 2 or under or by virtue of the following provisions of this section or Schedule 10 to this Act;
and there shall be a separate election for each electoral division or ward'.

No. 927, in page 14 [Clause 27], leave out lines 22 to 33 and insert:
"(3) A district council may at any time in pursuance of the requisite resolution request the Secretary of State to provide—
(a) for a system of whole council elections, that is to say, the holding of the ordinary elections of all the councillors of the district simultaneously; or
(b) for a system of elections by thirds, that is to say, the election of one-third, as nearly as may be, of the councillors of the district at the ordinary elections of such councillors in any year;
indicating in the case of a request under paragraph (b) above, those areas, if any, in which there should, and those, if any, in which there should not, be wards each returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three.
In this subsection "the requisite resolution" means in the case of a resolution passed before 1st April 1974 a resolution passed by a majority, and in the case of a resolution passed on or after that date a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds, of the members voting thereon at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose with notice of the object.
(4) Where the Secretary of State receives a request under subsection (3)(a) above from a district council or does not before 1st April 1974 receive a request from a district council under subsection (3)(b) above, he may make an order providing for the ordinary elections of all the district councillors to beheld simultaneously and the order may contain the like provision, and shall be treated, as if made under section 60 below.
(5) Where the Secretary of State receives a request under subsection (3)(b) above from a district council he may ask the Welsh Commission to make proposals in the light of the request with respect to—
(a) the number, boundaries and names of the wards into which the district should be divided and the number of councillors to be elected for each ward;
(b) the order of retirement of councillors elected for wards not returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three;
and, where the Commission have not completed their review of the electoral arrangements for the district under paragraph 10 of Schedule 10 to this Act, they shall as part of that review


consider the proposals to be made under this subsection and, in any other case, sections 61, 62 and 63 below shall apply to the consideration by the Commission of any such proposals as they apply to their conduct of a review under section 59 below and any such proposals shall be treated as if made under section 60 below.
(6) The ordinary election of district councillors shall take place—
(a) except where an order is in force providing for the election of district councillors by thirds, in 1973, 1976, 1979 and every fourth year thereafter; and
(b) where such an order is in force, in the year when the order comes into force and every year thereafter other than a year of election of county councillors.
(7) The following provisions of this subsection shall, subject to the provisions of any order made under or by virtue of this section, have effect with respect to district councillors—
(a) their term of office shall be three years in the case of the councillors elected at the ordinary elections in 1973 and 1976 and four years in the case of those elected at ordinary elections held thereafter;
(b) except where an order is in force providing for the election of councillors by thirds, the whole number of the councillors shall retire together in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and in or after 1976 the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire; and
(c) where such an order is in force, one-third of the whole number of the councillors in each ward returning a number of councillors is divisible by and, as nearly as may be, one-third of the whole number of the councillors in the other wards, being those who have been councillors of the district for the longest time without re-election, shall retire in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and in every such year the newly-elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire".

No. 928, in page 14, line 34, leave out Clause 28.

No. 1175, in page 19, line 20 [Clause 37] leave out subsection (2) and insert:
'(2) Subject to any provision included in an order by virtue of section 69 below, the ordinary election of community councillors shall take place in 1974, 1979 and every fourth year thereafter, their term of office shall be five years in the case of those elected at the ordinary elections in 1974 and four years in the case of those elected at ordinary elections held thereafter, and the whole number of community councillors shall retire together in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the 4th day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors and in and after 1979 the newly elected councillors shall

come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire.

No. 731, in page 223, line 11 [Schedule 5], after 'out' insert:
'either before or after the passing of this Act'.

No. 929, in page 223, line 16, leave out '28(a)' and insert '27(1A)(a)'.

No. 930, in page 223, line 17, leave out paragraph 3.

No. 954, in page 227, line 31, leave out from 'councillors' to 'occurring' in line 32.

No. 955, in page 227, line 32, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

No. 956, in page 227, line 37, leave out from 'councillors' to end of line 38.

No. 957, in page 227, line 39, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

No. 958, in page 227, line 43, leave out from 'councillors' to 'occurring' in line 44.

Mr. Carlisle: As you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a formidable list of Amendments. I do not know whether it constitutes a record for a local government Bill, but it is certainly the most formidable grouping of Amendments to which I myself have had to speak, and I only hope that I shall not leave out any of those which are in your grouping, or in error add any which were previously grouped but which may not be in the present grouping.
Formidable as the grouping of Amendments may appear to be, the Amendments deal, in the main, with the method of elections for the new non-metropolitan district councils. I would briefly remind the House of the history of the matter. The Bill, as drafted, in Clause 7 provided, firstly, that for county council elections there should be single-member wards with the first election in 1973 and thereafter election of the whole council every four years. These Amendments make no change so far as county council elections are concerned.
The Bill as drafted also provided in Clauses 7 and 8 that for all districts, whether metropolitan districts or non-metropolitan districts, there should be a system of three-member wards, with the first election in 1973, and thereafter a third of the members of each council of each district coming up for election in 1975 and every year thereafter. The method and the timing for each who


came up for election in 1975 and 1976 would be laid down in the interim provision in paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule to the Bill, all, again, to hold office for four years and retiring a third, annually, with annual elections each year other than the year of the county council elections. That was the proposal for all district councils whether metropolitan or non-metropolitan. So far as metropolitan districts are concerned—because the effect of these Amendments is to distinguish between metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts—there is no change proposed from the system started in the Bill, namely, annual elections, a third of the council coming up each year, sitting for four-year periods, with the year of the county council election being the year in which there is no metropolitan district election.
The effect of these Amendments taken as a whole—and many of the Amendments are consequential to the main ones, to which I shall refer in a moment—is merely to define the districts, to distinguish between non-metropolitan and metropolitan, and to provide a different system of election for the non-metropolitan districts.
As I say, the Bill as drafted provided for three-member wards for the non-metropolitan districts; but three-member wards everywhere throughout non-metropolitan districts have, I think, turned out to be extremely unpopular. The proposal was intensely disliked, particularly in the rural areas, as it was argued that it would make areas far too big. One has to remember that the normal reduction in the number of councillors which this Bill will in any event bring about makes the areas substantially greater than three times the size of the existing rural areas. It would make councillors too remote with a feeling in a scattered rural area that in the parish there would be no one whom the people of the parish could regard as their representative on the district council.
This was discussed in Committee. It was a fairly brief discussion raised by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) on 27th January and at that time my hon Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir Richard Sharpies) agreed to consider this matter further.
After due reflection, the Government have concluded that it would be right to

propose changes so as to allow councils in all non-metropolitan districts a choice between whole council elections and elections by thirds, and as between three-member wards and single-member wards. These changes will apply also to all districts in Wales as well as to the districts outside the metropolitan counties in England.
The Amendments therefore provide that for the first election in 1973 wards in non-metropolitan districts will be able to return either one, two, three or any other number of councillors according to local circumstances. These arrangements will be provided by orders made by the Home Secretary under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 for England, and under paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 for Wales, after consultation with the existing local councils. Partly because of the time-scale within which this will have to be done—

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. and learned Gentleman used the phrase
after consultation with the existing local councils".
Will he explain how that is to be done when the district is not yet legally defined and may be in different local authority areas?

Mr. Carlisle: The wording in the Schedule is that the Secretary of State shall—
after carrying out such consultations as he thinks appropriate".
In practice those existing councils which will be going into the area defined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for delineating the district areas, will be consulted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as to a suitable warding for the first elections.
Because of the time limit for the first elections, we shall follow as far as possible the local preference put to us. In particular, we intend where possible to keep to the existing ward boundaries even if it means the amalgamation of certain wards within the district.
All non-metropolitan district councillors elected in 1973 will serve for a three-year period until 1976. That means that for the non-metropolitan districts there will be no elections in 1975 in addition to there being no elections in 1974 for all areas. The reason for that


is that we realise that most, if not all, the warding arrangements will have to be revised at the time of the initial review of the Local Government Boundary Commission. While it is reasonably practical to hope that much of that revision will be achieved in time for the election of 1976, it is impracticable to hope that it will be done in time for a full series of elections in 1975. Had one had elections in 1975, councillors would have had to come up for re-election immediately after the completion of the initial review in 1976. This arrangement has the added advantage, which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate, that it will avoid early changes in membership in the first formulative years of the new district councils.
Once elected, a non-metropolitan district council will be able to request the Home Secretary to provide either for whole council elections or for elections by thirds. If that request is made prior to 1st April, 1974, it requires merely a resolution carried by a simple majority of the council. If the council opts for whole council elections, all the councillors will be elected together every four years, that fourth year being the mid year between the county council elections. In other words, there will be county council elections in 1973, 1977, 1981 and 1985. Elections to the whole non-metropolitan district council will be in the years 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1991.
Wards will be able to return one, two or three councillors to suit the local circumstances, provided that if they opt for whole council elections the matter will be referred to the Local Government Boundary Commission for delineation of the boundaries and, presumably, where there are to be whole council elections, the Boundary Commission's review will be on the likely basis of one-member wards.

5.15 p.m.

Since it is necessary to get the local elections and the county elections into cycle so that the election for the local district comes half way in the four-year period between county elections, those who are re-elected in 1976 will serve three years only, until 1979, rather than four years, which is half-way between the two county council elections. The four-year period starts from that stage. If,

on the other hand, the council opts for elections by thirds, one-third of the councillors will thereafter be elected in each of the years other than the year in which the county council election takes place.

So as to meet the situation of those rural areas which are attached to existing urban areas, a council which chooses a system of election by thirds will be able to indicate in its request those parts of the district which should have three-member wards and those parts which should have single-member wards. In other words, a council may agree that the whole of the elections in its district shall be on the basis of three-member wards with one-third of the councillors retiring every year or it may choose to have some parts as three-member wards and certain surrounding more scattered areas as single-member wards, in which case, one-third of the councillors of those single-member wards would retire in rotation along with one-third of the councillors of the three-member wards. One councillor in each three-member ward will be elected in any one year and one-third of all the councillors in all the other wards will be elected in any one year.

Councils will be expected to make their initial requests before the Boundary Commission starts its initial review. It is therefore provided that a resolution passed to this effect before 1st April, 1974, will require only a simple majority. Any resolution passed later than that, or any attempt to change that situation, will require a two-thirds majority. On receipt of the initial request the Home Secretary will ask the Boundary Commission to make its proposals at the initial review in the light of that request, and the council's choice will thus be given effect to at the first election after the initial review has been completed.

Where the review has been completed entirely there will be elections in 1976. Where the initial review has not been completed in time and the council opts for whole council elections, the elections will start in 1979 on the warding as provided under the proposals of the Local Government Boundary Commission by order of the Home Secretary. If councils opt for elections by thirds the system will start from 1978, with the Boundary Commission recommending which of the


single-member wards should retire in which order and the Home Secretary laying down an order to that effect and dealing with the retirement of the councillors—which of the three-member ward councillors comes up for re-election in the first year, which in the second and which in the third.

I have been attempting to describe the change of system of election in non-metropolitan district councils in England. This is achieved by Amendment No. 960, which provides for the different type of elections in the metropolitan district and non-metropolitan district, by Amendment No. 923, which seeks to leave out the existing Clause 8, and by the long Amendment, Amendment No. 1068, which sets out the new proposals.

Similar arrangements are provided for Wales by Amendments Nos. 961, 927 and 928. With three provisos—with which I shall deal shortly—the rest of the Amendments in the group are purely consequential on that major change. The first of the three provisos is Amendments Nos. 730 and 731, which relate to the point asked about by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), the consultation with the local authority. The effect of the Amendments is to amend Schedules 3 and 5, which deal with the transitional arrangements, to make it clear that consultations which take place with local authorities can take place before the passing of the Bill as well as afterwards. These consultations have been going on for some time with local authorities as to a suitable warding of the new districts if they be approved by the House. The Amendments merely say that the consultations which have taken place should be adequate consultations under the Schedule.

Amendments Nos. 933 and 1175 are amendments to Clauses 17 and 37, which deal with the parish elections in England and the community elections in Wales. The only effect of those Amendments is to make sure that the year of the parish council elections will coincide with the year of the election for the district councillor in whose ward the parish is; in other words, we shall still have the situation that when one is voting for the district councillor one will be voting for the parish councillor in the same year. It was said in Committee that by bring-

ing together the timing of both district and parish elections one may encourage a higher support, interest and turnout in those elections.

Finally, there is a group of Amendments to Schedules 9 and 10 which I will willingly try to explain if anyone wishes me to do so, but I can say merely in two lines that their effect is to make mandatory on the Local Government Boundary Commission the requirement to make proposals to the Home Secretary for the future electoral arrangements in England and Wales, and to make mandatory the requirement on the Home Secretary to make orders for them.

By their very grouping, the Amendments are somewhat complicated. I hope that I have succeeded in explaining their effect so far as they alter the type of elections in the non-metropolitan county. I believe that they will be welcomed. Certainly what we have done has been urged by the Government by the Urban District Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association and the National Association of Parish Councils, which are the main bodies concerned in the non-metropolitan districts.

This will provide a flexibility in the system of elections for the non-metropolitan districts which can provide annual elections with three-member wards for the urban areas, which are used to annual elections and three-member wards, and equally will provide single-member wards with elections every fourth year for those rural areas which are more sparsely populated and which now find themselves in a new district attached to a more heavily populated area.

This group of Amendments contains many tabled by my hon. Friends and certainly one official Opposition Amendment. If the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) will forgive me, I shall not attempt to answer the points in those Amendments now, but, if necessary, I shall say something about them later.

Mr. John Silkin: First, I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his elevation and commiserate with him on having to move so complex a series of Amendments.
I am whole-heartedly in agreement with one statement made on the previous Amendment by the hon. Member for


Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). It is a truism that all of us, on both sides of the House, wish to see a vigorous local democracy and a vigorous local government. The trouble is that the voting figures never bear out this interest in local affairs. Rather sadly, one can look around the Chamber at this moment and wonder whether hon. Members are as interested in local government as perhaps they might be—onboth sides of the House—because there appears to be a total gap in the tribunes of the people.
Our aim must be to create a vigorous local government and vigorous local democracy. Too often it is national affairs that interest the electors at the time of local elections, and even then only the active portion of the community and not the general mass of the people. That is the first thing we must do. It is something we have been debating in Committee and, already, on Report. We shall return to it again in the long days and nights ahead of us as we move towards discussing functions and powers and other important topics.
The machinery of Government, by itself, can do nothing more than either help or hinder the interest in matters of principle; but it can both help and hinder. Therefore, it is important that we should get the structure and the machinery absolutely right. If the electors are aware of the importance of local government elections, there is a better chance that they will take an interest. That was one reason why we on the Opposition side of the Committee pressed for a single positive day in each year for local elections so that national publicity could be directed to that one day. We felt that that might help the community to focus its mind on local elections and, perhaps, to have a higher poll when the time came.
We are grateful that the Government have seen this point. The hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor certainly paid great attention to it at the time. I am thinking of Clause 45. I notice that one Government Amendment says that apart from Ascension Day—in the year 2010, I think, with which I shall not concern myself at present—we should have local government elections on the first Thursday in May. This is excellent. But one of the troubles is that under

Amendment No. 960, as I see it, a number of authorities will not have elections on each first Thursday in May. They will have to wait for a period of years before they do.

5.30 p.m.

At this stage it may be helpful if I state the two points of principle, as I see them, which are embodied in this large complex of Amendments. The first point of principle embodied in Amendment No. 960 is the provision to allow wards of less or more than three councillors. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) moved an Amendment to provide for single-member wards in scattered rural areas. I am glad that that Amendment has had its effect.

The second point of principle goes against the idea of annual elections as such. Amendment No. 1068 provides for all non-metropolitan districts to opt for annual or four-yearly elections after the first two elections. Our Amendment states that there must be annual elections for all district councils except in the year of county elections and, therefore, is on all fours with the Government Amendment to Clause 45.

As to Amendment No. 960, the Home Office Circular dated 23rd June, 1972, suggested that there should be wards of one, two, three or more councillors: there is no maximum, so we might have any number; there might be 10 councillors or even 15, if I may exaggerate just a little, in any ward. If there are four-yearly elections the ballot paper will resemble one of those large pieces of wallpaper that one inspects from time to time when one is redecorating; there may be 30 or 40 names on it as candidates for one ward alone. Heaven help the poor electors on that basis.

We all of us agree in wanting to foment an interest in local government and getting a high point of drama and excitement in it as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North put it in the debate on the previous Amendment. The quickest way to kill that would be to present the electors with a piece of paper with 30 or 40 names on it. Even though the names of the political parties might be on it, the electors' patience will not rest very long on the subject.

We think that the maximum number of councillors per ward ought to be three.


It is obviously not possible to secure this in the first two elections. The hon. and learned Gentleman made his point convincingly on that. We think that clear guidance should be given to the Boundary Commission to get the number down to three. If it is got down to three, that will be one piece of progress. That should be true of metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts. On that basis, elections would be fought on the basis of one councillor retiring each year, whether it be county or district.

The second principle is an odd one in local government. I do not know of an example of its happening before. It is the choice given to the non-metropolitan districts and the Welsh districts to opt for which system they want. No such choice exists for the metropolitan districts; for some reason, they are not allowed to choose. Although the metropolitan districts will have their annual elections, except in the year of county elections, a splendid confusion will reign over the whole of England and Wales while some non-metropolitan district councils opt for the one and others opt for the other.

Apart from the confusion, there are other dangers arising from Amendment No. 1068. For example, where the whole council retires simultaneously one may, as one has seen happen in the past, have all the experienced councillors step off at one go. Annual elections at least provide for continuity.

Mr. Martin Maddan: Is not this the very thing that happens in the counties, anyhow? When I suggested in Committee that that might be a reason for keeping aldermen the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with me.

Mr. Silkin: By some strange chance, I was coming to the question of aldermen. I was about to say that at least it could be said about aldermen that they provided that sort of continuity. Aldermen are to go, and I am glad that they are to go. I regard aldermen as undemocratic. It was not for any other reason that I opposed their retention, but simply because I do not believe that when we have local elections, if we are to make them representative, we can have a non-elected person alleged to be representative of the community who is not

representative. The hon. Gentleman makes his point about county councils. However, the danger there is not so great. It is much more likely to occur in district councils. I have no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at the appropriate point the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, when he can make his point better than I can make it for him.
Another danger which is inherent in Amendment No. 1068 is this. We have a firm date on which the proportions differ—a simple majority and then after that two-thirds. What is not stated by the Minister of State is that it is possible for councils to change their political allegiance. They do so with monotonous frequency. It is possible that what appeals to one party as a basis of elections—an annual basis, for example—will not appeal to the party that succeeds it. I cannot think of anything more confusing and more dangerous than a change in the basis of elections between annual and quadrennial, but that is very likely to happen. It is much better to have the thing cut and dried now and to accept it as being cut and dried.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider this. Unless I hear some extremely good reasons, I propose to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the whole series of Amendments, because this is the way we have to do it, as you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I do not think that firm answers will be forthcoming.
The best answer would be for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he will take all these Amendments away and consult, through his Advisory Committees, not only the local authority associations but also the political parties to find out what they feel about it. Then, if he is absolutely certain of his ground—I do not think that he would be at the end of that—let him by all means put the Amendments in in another place. In the meantime, I have tried to show the dangers that are implicit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting and a little of the confusion that goes with them.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Although the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and I both hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will take back this


large batch of Amendments and reconsider the methods to be adopted for the machinery and pattern of elections, the right hon. Gentleman and I differ considerably about what we would like to see done.
My sub-Amendment (a) on page 11151 to Amendment No. 960—in line 5, to leave out "three" and insert "two"—sets the theme of the chain of Amendments, mainly Nos. 670, 671 and 673, which have been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. Broadly speaking, we would like to see elections by way of halves instead of thirds.
Speaking as someone who did not serve on the Standing Committee, I believe that there has been surprisingly little parliamentary and public discussion of these matters to date. Everyone has been so concerned with areas and powers that there has been little time left to think of the matters that we are considering now. The Standing Committee, indeed, spent only about 20 minutes on these points, but it just touched the alternative possibility of having half-council elections every two years. In general I think, as far as I can judge, that the idea of four-year terms at all levels is acceptable, particularly the idea of having a single "Local Government Election Day" so that there is no confusion and there is one day in any year on which all local government elections should take place.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State not only for the very lucid way in which he described the Government Amendment but also for having sought to meet the very serious objections which were put forward largely from rural areas against having to have three member wards, which in the rural areas would have meant an impossibly large geographical area to seek to represent, and also for providing a method whereby the non-metropolitan district councils—again mainly rural areas—might avoid having annual elections which in rural areas are thought to be unnecessarily and crushingly exhausting and expensive. I express no view about metropolitan areas because they like annual elections—

Mr. Denis Howell: Rubbish.

Mr. Hill: If they do not like annual elections, it strengthens my case. It is churlish, in thanking my hon. and learned Friend for putting down these Amendments, then to put down no fewer than 17 sub-Amendments to his main Amendments.
My hon. and learned Friend must be asked to look at this again for two smaller reasons. In the likely metropolitan districts there will be parts, or the whole, of some 26 existing rural district councils. I have received from the Rural District Councils Association, of which I am one of many vice-presidents in this House, a list of the councils which will find themselves compelled to be warded on a three-member basis, despite the fact that many of them will have these large geographical areas which make it very difficult to work on a triple-member basis, even if one likes this kind of multiple warding.
I should like to quote from this letter from the Rural District Councils Association dated 4th July:
These councils fear that the effect of grouping councillors in wards of three or multiples of three will be that the rural fringes of the metropolitan districts will not be represented on the councils, because the bulk of the population will be in the urban parts of the wards and the representation will come from there.
I would think it desirable that these rural district councils should not be deprived of an option which the majority will now have. That view is strengthened by the fact that I have also heard from the Urban District Councils Association that it, too, would like the benefit of the option now provided by my hon. Friend to be extended to metropolitan district councils.

5.45 p.m.

Coming back to my first Amendment, there are matters of rather deeper principle which I should like the House to consider. Although the Amendments are very complicated as they appear on the Paper, and although I certainly would not claim that they make consistent sense, and still less have accurate legal effect, the theme running through them is that instead of having a mixture of whole council elections for counties and either whole or one-third council elections for districts, we would like a system of half-council elections every two years on both levels so as to provide a degree of


overlap and therefore, we would hope, more continuity and stability in local government. This can only be done neatly if multi-member wards are organised on a basis of multiples of two- and not three-member wards.

To resolve the conflict between those districts which would like an election every year mainly the metropolitan ones—and those districts.mainly the rural ones—which want to have less frequent elections, we would allow a further option so that districts could either choose to have their half district council elections in or out of step with the half county council elections.

I do not know whether hon. Members can follow that but it is very simple. The four-year cycle for a council which wanted to have the minimum number of elections would simply be a blank year, then a year in which there were both the half-county council elections and with it the half district council elections, then another blank year, and then the remaining half of the half county council elections and likewise the remaining half of the districts. For those areas and districts which wanted frequent elections then, as I say, their own district elections will come in the intermediate years.

In fact, this last proposal would not quite result in metropolitan districts having everyone voting in each year because, as the right hon. Member for Deptford pointed out, where there are single-member wards the electors in them do not vote in a year in which that particular ward is not coming up for election, but it would be true to say that there will be plenty of electoral activity in the neighbouring area each year if that is what people and the political organisations want.

Briefly, here are some of the considerations which led me to think in terms of half council elections. Originally, it struck me as somewhat curious that the Bill provided for districts to be elected as to one-third each year, providing considerable continuity, whereas the more powerful counties were all to be elected on a whole council basis on one fixed day every four years. I could see that that was attractive from the point of view of a newly elected council and its officers, since they could feel that they had four years, could develop their policy and not

worry about elections. That was one of the benefits which was noted in the short reference to this matter in the Redcliffe-Maud Report. On the other hand, against that, as Redcliffe-Maud pointed out, it would remove the council from having any view about its progress given by its own electors during the whole of four years, save by the chance of a by-election or possible reflected criticism through district elections below the counties.

But what Redcliffe-Maud did not, I think, take sufficiently into account, and what I confess causes me some concern, is that if all county councils throughout the land come up for election on one day every four years, the mass media and the public will find it almost impossible not to treat the county elections as a glorified national opinion poll on the performance not of a series of separate counties but of the Government of the day—and, possibly, not even the performance of the Government of the day but, rather, the international circumstances of the day. It seems to me, therefore, that having everything at stake every four years is likely to exaggerate swings and lead to the various disadvantages which can flow from sharp movements.

It is inevitable that local elections will be influenced by factors outside local government, but I believe the Bill aggravates that tendency, where one might wish to mitigate it. I am led to wonder—we ought all to consider this—whether it is desirable, save in parliamentary elections, that the whole nation should come out on one day and vote for a geographical area which covers the whole country. I put that point to the House.

Aldermen are being abolished. I do not question that, but it will make it harder to achieve continuity in local administration. It means that there is less chance for councillors who are defeated and who would like to get back or who are wanted back. Candidates will have to wait four years instead of having a biennial chance of being chosen for a ward which is coming up next time.

I have talked of swings, but there is the other danger that an election may produce a situation of near stalemate, which hitherto the use of the aldermanic system, although criticised, may assist, enlarging a minute majority into a working majority.

Mr. Oakes: Oh.

Mr. Hill: I am not advocating this. I am pointing out what could happen under the system which is about to be abolished. I ask hon. Members to consider the possible effect of whole council elections under the new system. There might be something approaching stalemate. One then has the long four-year period, apart from the attrition of by-elections and so on, before the chance of securing a strengthened majority comes along. Parliament may go for a General Election. That is what happened between 1964 and 1966; a tiny majority in 1964 was followed by a bigger one in 1966. But that cannot happen under this proposed system. On the other hand, a biennial 50 per cent, election would enable the public to give a stronger or a lesser voice to its finding two years earlier.
I should like there to be more discussion of the pros and cons of all these matters. I do not know what the answer is. What worries me is that we are taking decisions without a great deal of public discussion. One has seen remarkably little about these matters in the Press or anywhere else.
It is somewhat curious that the Bill makes provision for the future amendment of areas and powers as between different councils but there is no flexibility in this respect, even with the proposed Government Amendments, for the metropolitan district councils. They are to be warded for all time and they are to have annual elections. It may well be that the trend of public opinion and desire will move away from warding. As a citizen of Westminster, I dislike being represented by a committee of three whom I do not see, and I would rather have one identifiable representative. However, that may be a rural bias. The essential point is that patterns and opinions may change, yet the Bill as it stands is somewhat rigid. I should like to see more flexibility in it.
To that end I have put down Amendment No. 671, which would provide means within the Bill for moving from whole council to half council elections or vice versa, or for moving district elections in or out of phase with the counties. It could be easily done within the Bill, subject to parliamentary approval.
It seems to me that there is a case for thinking about the general principle rather more deeply. I have a hunch that half council elections might be better in the long run, but I do not wish to be dogmatic about it, and that is why I should like to see flexibility in the Bill, because I believe in the longest run of all it is desirable, within certain fixed national limits, that local authorities should have the form of election and the timing which they prefer.

Sir David Renton: We have not yet got this right. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was completely right to suggest that the Government should take the matter away and have further thoughts about it. It is necessarily a complex matter. There are so many different questions involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) is to be congratulated for having worked out a scheme which, compared with the mass of Amendments on the Paper and compared with the original Bill, has the potential advantage of simplicity. It has the advantage of giving continuity. If we wanted a degree of flexibility of the kind he suggests, coupled with his last-mentioned Amendment, No. 671—which, incidentally, is flexibility on a national basis and not that sort of flexibility which, I fear, will flow from the Government's latest effort, producing a very uneven pattern among non-metropolitan districts—we could have the nearest we could get to the best of all worlds if we accept his proposals as a basis for agreement. They could also be a halfway house between what the Opposition most desire and what I know was thought of on the Government side at one stage as being desirable.

6.0 p.m.

I wish to pinpoint the excellent qualities of my hon. Friend's scheme. The first of these is its simplicity. Surely there is a lot to be said for having a national four-year cycle. In the first and third years of the cycle there would be half county council elections and in the second and fourth years there would be half district council elections, whether metropolitan or non-metropolitan. That means that in each year there would be some democratic interest focused on local government elections but not in


such a way as to cause them to become a sort of second-rate parliamentary General Election, complete with all the mass media, the opinion polls, the party machines and apparatus fully deployed. My goodness, the mass media and the pollsters will have a whale of a time if we proceed with the Government's proposals. They have gained rather more influence over democracy than they should have anyway. This point was considered at Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform during the last Parliament. It has aroused anxiety and, at the only time perhaps in this century when we shall legislate on the important matter of applying the democratic process to local government, we should not do it in such a way as makes worse a trend which in this and other countries does not always seem to be working in the best interests of democracy.

I shall deal with county councils and district councils separately. The Government have rightly decided that there shall be single-member constituencies for county councils. My only doubt about my hon. Friend's scheme was when he indicated that it would mean two-member constituencies if we were to divide it up in the way he suggests.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: It can be achieved perfectly well by sticking to a one-member system and I would much prefer to do that. It would mean dividing the county seats into Group A and Group B.

Sir D. Renton: That is exactly what I hoped might be the outcome and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying it. We would stick to what we have and we would avoid multi-member constituencies which are inherently disadvantageous. There would be a four-year term in the Bill. It means that only half of each county council on a geographical basis would have to retire. Surely it would be much better to have half a county council retiring every other year than the whole council retiring every four years, giving rise to a sort of mini-General Election.
I appreciate the thought my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has given to the question of district councils but I implore him to give the subject even more thought. I am sure it is not yet right. Why should metropolitan and

non-metropolitan districts be treated differently? They will not all be utterly different in character. I have with me a letter from the Urban District Councils Association dated 14th July and addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South. In it the secretary of the Association says:
We have not been given any reason why there should be a difference between the two types of council.
I listened very carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend said this afternoon but the only reason I could fathom was that those in rural areas have protested rather strongly about the arrangements already in the Bill and that there had not been the same sort of protest from the metropolitan districts. We should have the same arrangements in both cases or be told why they are different, if that is to be the case.
There are many existing urban district councils and even some rural district councils or parts of rural district councils which will be incorporated in metropolitan districts, and therefore one can understand the feelings of the people concerned. I see no valid reason for the difference in treatment.
I have a confession to make to the House. Whereas we have a Local Government Bill of this character perhaps only once a century, one has one's silver wedding only once in a lifetime. That falls to me today and so I shall not be in the House for the whole evening, and perhaps not even for the reply to the debate, which is shameful on my part. [Hon. Members: "No."] I hope my apologies will be accepted. My hon. Friend's proposal deserves further attention and I am sure that the simplicity and continuity with the kind of flexibility that I have mentioned should commend itself to the Government and that they will have further thoughts on these matters.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is the first time that I have been able to rise and congratulate an hon. Member on the occasion of his silver wedding and at the same time, when a Division takes place, to hope that he has departed to enjoy it. It is right that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) should have the congratulations of the Opposition benches.
I am very much in agreement with the purpose of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. The Government must look at their proposal again. It is a half-baked attempt to deal with the situation. The Bill has been hurriedly drafted in an attempt to cope with it. It is the result of a lack of consultation and it suffers from indecision. In my constituency we are confused with the Minister's persistent contradictions in his attempts to answer questions which never occurred to him when the Bill was being drafted.
There is a situation which stands out clearly and one wonders why the Government did not foresee it. In Wales there are no metropolitan counties. They are all non-metropolitan and they have the functions virtually of a metropolitan county in England. Yet there are different options for the purposes of the elections. Not only are there contradictions between Wales and England in terms of the functions of local government, but there are contradictions in terms of the election of councillors for the districts in Welsh non-metropolitan counties and the metropolitan counties of England. Therefore, a comparison between England and Wales makes it clear that the Government have created a serious conflict in judgments about functions and elections in their local government reorganisation proposals.
We also have the fantastic suggestion that there can be elections in districts of numbers of councillors provided their numbers are divisible by three. If I remember rightly, that applies to metropolitan districts. Who decides the numbers? Will there be a situation in which in one part of England someone decides "We shall have nine councillors in a metropolitan district" and in another part of England it is decided that the number shall be six or three? How can we evaluate electoral responses with that kind of imbalance, bearing in mind that there is a likelihood of more than two parties fighting elections and that we still have Independents at elections, albeit Conservatives under another banner? We also have the peculiar groups with an axe to grind that arise from time to time. What multiples of numbers of candidates are we to have in a situation where there is already a built-in possibility of a metropolitan

county deciding any number of councillors divisible by three?
If that is justified, why is there not the same justification for the non-metropolitan districts, particularly in Wales, where they have the functions of metropolitian counties and districts? To put it the other way, if the Government will accept that multiples of three in metropolitan districts are wrong, why cannot they agree on the basis of a non-metropolitan district?
In addition to this kind of difference in weighting the metropolitan or non-metropolitan county with different numbers of candidates, in the non-metropolitan county area there is the idea of a voluntary determination to have the councillors come up for re-election all at once or by thirds. If one non-metropolitan district decides on one method and another decides on the other method, confusion will be created. How can we expect the electorate to be interested in local government if people cannot understand what is happening? A fundamental fact about elections is that the communications media, the national Press and television, focus public attention on what is happening when there are elections on a particular day across the country, as is now the case with the county councils or county boroughs. Under the Government's proposal there will be complete confusion. It has been suggested that the elections would all take place on the first Thursday of May. I refer to the county, metropolitan districts and non-metropolitan district elections. But we must bear in mind that the non-metropolitan district elections can be of two different kinds. I cannot see why the Government have opted for the method in the Bill.

6.15 p.m.

We have already heard today of the difficulties in the election of the mayor. I did not give too much serious thought to that. We are dealing with a situation which in practice has been fraught with apathy. We need the help of the agencies which can create public interest and explain to the public what is happening and why. The proposals in the Bill are so diffuse that I do not think the House understands their full implications.

Although it may sound reasonable, what was said by the Minister of State


cannot in practice produce the right answers. He referred to consultation, but the right answers cannot be found from consultations about a situation which has not yet arisen from people who may not be involved. Is the opinion of the clerks to the existing authorities to be taken into account because their authorities will be part of a new district? I cannot accept that the hon. and learned Gentleman can obtain satisfactory answers from people, whether councillors or others, who at the pertinent time will not have a personal interest, who may not even be part of the new authority. We want to know whom the hon. and learned Gentleman will consult.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not want to be at cross-purposes with the hon. Gentleman. The consultations to which I referred were merely for the interim arrangements, for the first elections. I think I made it clear that once the councils are elected they will be able to make proposals. The difficulty we face now concerns next year's elections for new councils. Obviously, the order must be made by the Secretary of State. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Secretary of State should not consult anyone? I am sure he does not mean that. There is no one to consult but those in the existing areas who will go into the new areas. I repeat that the consultation is merely for the interim, for the first elections, until the new councils are set up.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is my point. When the Minister of State talks about next year, I can imagine the kind of consultation which will be possible in England and Wales as hasty and tenuous. That has been the fault throughout the Bill. The Minister of State knows the amount of consultative work which has gone on. A circular is issued including the words "required by such and such a date". Councils meet once a month and answers are wanted in six weeks. That is the kind of consultation which has gone on.
It is all very well the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting on his backside thinking that the House can be satisfied with his assurance about consultation. Local government, which is the most fundamental thing in the United Kingdom, will suffer tremendously unless the Govern-

ment are prepared properly to consult organisations and people who are concerned with matters within their communities, and not simply councillors who will be retired and not involved in the matter next year.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman must not get matters out of proportion. We are talking about the interim proposals for the first election. I understand that he wants us to consult and that is what we are doing. Whom does he suggest are the appropriate people to consult?

Mr. Leadbitter: If the Minister of State will allow time for consultation, I should say in this context that not less than two years should be allowed. He would then be able to consult a wide range of organisations, professional bodies and people who are leaders in their local communities, not necessarily members of councils who are about to be retired next year under this set-up. If the Minister does that, he will get some ideas about the character and nature of the urban and rural areas which at the moment are in a hotch-potch of a situation.
We have established over many years a local government organisation which is the envy of the world. There is little support for the Government's proposals. Hon. Members on the Government side are disturbed by them. One hon. Member opposite said to me not so long ago "Why on earth cannot they wait until after the next election?" I have a better suggestion: why not be more patient and get the answers right? Apart from the contradictions, the confusion, and the differences of treatment between Wales and England, we have sufficient apathy in local government now without introducing the increasing scales which are involved in the Bill, increasing the remoteness of people in local government and weakening the communications media. If attention is not focused on local government in electoral terms, we will not produce good local government but we will take another step forward to a kind of managerial society in which democracy has little place.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: I address myself to Amendment No. 876 but I should explain that


Amendments Nos. 877 and 878 should be read in conjunction with it because they are consequential. Although there are three Amendments there is only one theme, which is the provision for simultaneous election of councillors in the metropolitan districts.
The Secretary of State, in an attempt to improve the Bill, is proposing to give to non-metropolitan district councils the option to have simultaneous elections. But why does he stop there? Why does he not also give the option to the district councils within the metropolitan districts? We can have a situation in which the county councils inside and outside the metropolitan districts and the non-metropolitan district councils will be elected every four years. Only the district councils within the metropolitan districts will be subjected to annual elections.
There should be simultaneous election of councillors irrespective of the type of council. We have heard arguments in favour of annual election and the word "continuity" has cropped up frequently. I shall seek to show that that particular method of election of councillors provides just the opposite. If continuity is a principle to which we should all adhere, we should have regular elections of one-half or one-third, whatever the figure may be, but I have never heard it suggested that Members of the House of Commons should be elected in that way to provide for continuity. There is continuity in the House because many of us who will seek re-election will invariably come back. Precisely the same thing happens in local government. Councillors seek re-election; often they are re-elected and there is continuity in that respect.
I suspect that "continuity" means that there shall be a continuation of policies or work and other aspects. Anybody who has had experience of local government will confirm that work ceases from the council meeting immediately preceding the elections in May. The elections are held and the committees are then reformed and reconstituted. The following month the council meets again to confirm the appointment of the committees. Consequently, during the whole of one month, because of the election no committees meet. In that sense there has not been continuity.
It is a fallacy to believe that annual elections provide a basis for continuity. The Minister of State should give the same option to the district councils in the non-metropolitan areas that is given to the district councils in the metropolitan areas. The Minister of State, in his attempt to meet the wishes of the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association, has made this part of the Bill, bad as it was, even worse.
Many of the authorities which will form the new district councils are at present urban districts and are represented by the Urban District Councils Association. Why, therefore, does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that when the association is making representations along these lines it is essentially excluding its existing members simply because they will be going into metropolitan districts?
The Government's approach to this matter is hotch-potch. It will cause great inconsistencies in the election of councillors throughout England and Wales, and I hope the Government will think again.

6.30 p.m.

Mr, Charles Morrison: My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have realised that on both sides of the House there are considerable reservations about the proposals which the Government are putting forward. I hope he will agree to give the matter more thought. I realise that the Government have already met some of the points made in Committee on behalf of the rural areas on the type of representation in the non-metropolitan districts and I am grateful to them in that respect. I am not convinced, however, that they have yet produced an adequate solution to cope with all the problems concerned with representation and the timing of elections.
I like the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) with regard to representation, since this would bring greater flexibility in elections and, in the timing, would help to ensure greater effect in that council elections would not be affected for better or worse by some hot political issue currently facing the nation rather than facing the county in which the election is


taking place. Amendment No. 869, which stands in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, goes rather further than the Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South. I think that his Amendments certainly would produce a better solution than those put forward by the Government.
Amendment No. 869 is concerned in particular with the question of single representation. This House did away with multiple representation of parliamentary seats in 1948, and I do not think anyone would suggest that we should ever have it back again. It is right that each constituency should have but one Member who can take the praise or probably more often the blame for actions and opinions of the Government or the Opposition. It is of particular importance that one person only should represent a constituency because he is easily identifiable to the electors. One representative is better than two; two are better than three or six or nine.
One might indeed wonder why we as Members of Parliament get so many letters about local government problems. Surely one of the reasons is that a Member of Parliament is easily identifiable in the area he represents. If democracy at local level is to mean anything, elected representatives in local government also must be easily identifiable and easily recognisable. Therefore, in local government as in this House, one representative is better than, as it were, a committee of representatives, because such a committee only muddles people.
Suppose that someone has a problem. Does he go to Mr. X, who may be very good at expressing views in the council chamber but is totally unprepared to listen to views expressed to him? Does he go to Mr. Y, who may be good at listening to views expressed by the electors but bad at putting them across in the council chamber? Or does he go to Mr. Z, who may be the paragon of all virtues but, as everyone knows, is so overworked that the elector thinks "I cannot go to him because it would overload him even further"? Quite often in these circumstances the individual with a problem decides to do nothing or writes to his Member of Parliament instead.
Some people may say that these things do not matter very much, but I believe that they matter enormously because government both at national and local level is often thought to be remote, out of touch with realities and out of touch with the views of the electorate. It is, therefore, of great importance that the strands which connect the elected and the electorate should be strong and direct, and they should be improved whenever possible. I believe that the strand between one elected representative and the electorate at local level would be more likely to produce a better line of communication between the two than any other arrangement.
Finally, a single member ward would be much smaller than the multiple member wards of today, and I believe that it would not be any more difficult for one councillor to look after a smaller ward than theoretically for three councillors or whatever the number may be to look after a much large area. I wonder why the Government have not chosen to introduce single member wards in all districts as well as in the counties. Unless my hon. and learned Friend the Minister is able to put a strong argument to the contrary, I believe that single member representations for the reasons I have given is infinitely preferable to any form of multiple representation. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to hold out hope of further thought by the Government on this aspect and that perhaps the matter can be dealt with in another place.

Mr. Carlisle: As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) has said, he and others who have spoken have expressed considerable reservations about the Government's scheme, but one of the difficulties is that almost every one of them has put forward different reservations. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) said that I had made the Bill worse by allowing non-metropolitan district councils to have single-member wards, and asked why metropolitan districts should not also be allowed single-member wards with elections every four years. His right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) argued that the change was a mistake because


it did away with annual elections in non-metropolitan areas and that all areas should have annual elections.
Again, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes will forgive my pointing out that he has his name down to two separate Amendments, one being Amendment No. 869 in favour of single-member wards, and the other in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) which seeks two-member wards in metropolitan districts.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I made the point that I preferred the solution of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) to that of the Government, but I also wondered whether the argument in favour of single-member wards did not have even greater strength.

Mr. Carlisle: I was not speaking in any malicious sense but was merely agreeing that considerable reservations have been expressed. With respect, the Government Amendment allows councils to choose whether or not they have single-member wards. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is right in saying that there is any greater advantage in requiring them all to have single-member wards whether they want them or not than in requiring them all to have three-member wards, which the Bill originally did, and which was criticised by many people, particularly in the rural areas, as being unsuitable for them. Just as three-member wards very clearly became unpopular to those representing rural areas, to many areas which always have had three-member wards and which are now going into non-metropolitan districts the one-member ward might be as unattractive.
Therefore, we have here an attempt at that very flexibility which would enable a new non-metropolitan district to choose that form of electoral system which most suited its need by allowing it to decide whether to divide the district into three-member wards or one-member wards, or a combination of both.

Mr. Conlan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why this provision cannot be applied to the metropolitan districts?

Mr. Carlisle: I shall come to that point in due course. My right hon. and learned

Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) asked, as did the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, what was the difference between the non-metropolitan and metropolitan district in this respect. The answer is that in the main the metropolitan areas consist of the boroughs and urbanised areas most of which have been accustomed to three-member wards and annual elections and most of which, being in the metropolitan areas, are suitable, because of density of population, for three-member wards with annual elections. There has been no pressure for single-member wards within the metropolitan areas. Those areas going into the metropolitan areas have, on the whole, been used to three-member wards with annual elections. One can therefore make a distinction between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan districts

6.45 p.m.

Two of the various points raised by the right hon. Member for Deptford I can, I hope, answer to his satisfaction, though I cannot accept his third main criticism. First, he said that the Amendment as drafted would allow for wards of any number and size. That point was taken up by the hon. Member for The Hartle-pools (Mr. Leadbitter)—and at this stage he accused me, quite rightly, of not completely following what he said—who spoke about numbers of councillors being divisible by three. As I pointed out, that is nothing new. Every borough has three-member wards. The legal provision is for three or multiples of three, but in practice most wards are three-member. The use of the words "divisible by three" is not some new idea to enable us to have nine-member wards but is taken from previous legislation.

The right hon. Member for Deptford asked whether there was not a danger with the Amendment, and presumably with the Bill as drafted, that by this reference to "divisible by three" one might get substantially larger wards. I am quite prepared to undertake to consider very sympathetically giving guidance to the Boundary Commission as to what the maximum number of councillors for any ward should be.

Amendment No. 1068 gives the district the option to choose either whole council elections or thirds. The indication quite clearly is that they could indicate those


wards which they thought should be appropriately single-member or three-member wards, but whether it would be completely right to tie the legislation down to specifying wards of three members I should like further time to consider. Nevertheless, as I say, I would sympathetically consider giving guidance to Local Government Boundary Commissions that when faced with council proposals they should aim to provide, where councils want wards to be divisible by three, wards of a size no greater than those now returning three councillors.

The right hon. Gentleman said that it was extraordinary that in future the non-metropolitan district councils were to be allowed to choose whether they had whole council elections once every four years or a system of thirds with annual elections. There is nothing new in this. Ever since 1933 urban and rural district councils, which will be taking up large areas of the new non-metropolitan district councils have had the right to opt between whole council elections and elections of one-third.

This meets another point made by the right hon. Gentleman that the 1933 Act allowed a change in that option. For example, in my constituency I have a rural district of one-member wards, all of which come up for election every three years, and I have an urban district of three-member wards, one-third of which come up for election each year. There is nothing new or unusual in the right of councils to opt.

Mr. John Silkin: We are dealing with the reorganisation of local government and we do not want to make the mistakes made in the past. Secondly, we are dealing with larger units than before and therefore units where there may be greater party conflict and, therefore, more frequent changes of control than is now the situation.

Mr. Carlisle: I will come to change of control. The intention of requiring any change after 1st April, 1974, to be by a two-thirds majority was to avoid changing the rules according to the political complexion of the party in power acting in what it believed to be its own interests. I say at once, however, that I am prepared to look at that again. It is not

desirable that, having once chosen one-member wards, councils a few years later should change to three-member wards and a few years after that go back to one-member wards. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that there may be changing circumstances, such as substantial development in the area, for instance a new town, which might make the original decision to have one-member wards less appropriate and which might make three-member wards more appropriate.

Mr. Silkin: I was concerned with whether it should be all out or part out; not with the wards.

Mr. Carlisle: If they change to one-member wards they may become all out, but I am prepared to consider that again because it would be most undesirable for methods of election to change according to the political complexion of the council. Rural and urban district councils have always had power to change the option under the 1933 Act, but the fact that the right hon. Gentleman thought this provision without precedent confirms my feelings that it is only because the power has not been used that many did not realise it was there. It is not likely to happen, but if the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is any danger I will certainly consider the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman's main contention was that annual elections were desirable. I gather that he is not opposed to the argument advanced in Committee by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir R. Sharpies) when the hon. Member argued the case for having one-member wards. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues from Wales strongly urged my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Welsh Office that there should be one-member wards. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment accepts that there may be one-member wards and I understand that what he opposes is whole council elections rather than one-third going out every year.
I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He suggested that annual elections created greater interest in local government than did an election every fourth year. Let us be clear what


his system would mean. With one-member wards, it would mean that each each year there would be an election in one-third of the district. I am not sure that it leads to less confusion or greater interest hearing that in one village there is an election in 1973, in another village an election in 1974, in a third village an election in 1975 and so on. Is that very different from having the whole district council coming up for re-election every fourth year? The system that the right hon. Gentleman urged on the ground that it would increase interest in local elections is in many ways more confusing than having one whole district council in a county re-elected in year A, another whole district council in that county re-elected in year B and another district council in that county re-elected in year C, each person in the county being able to vote in a year depending on the district in which he lives.
I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the steps taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam towards having one day for elections. That is a matter with which I shall deal later. I will certainly try to meet him on what he said about the maximum number of councillors for any ward and how any later change in the option might be made. On the general principle, the only distinction between us is whether there should be whole council elections or one-third of one-member wards. I do not see any greater advantage in insisting that one third of wards should come up each year—unless it is the argument of continuity and to some extent the right hon. Gentleman dismissed that argument in respect of county councils—than in having the whole council coming up every fourth year, as already happens in many rural areas.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: That may be true in those instances where there are one-member wards, but is there any reason why in those areas where there are three-member wards there should not be annual elections of one-third of the council, rather than whole council elections every three years?

Mr. Carlisle: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is specifically required in the metropolitan districts.
I am prepared to look at this issue. The warding will be done by the Local

Government Boundary Commission and if a council opts for whole county elections, the Commission would be entitled to assume that it was therefore opting for one-member wards rather than for multi-member wards with whole council elections.
I reply now to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire. I appreciate what they are attempting to do. They are trying to find a method of ensuring that there is continuity while retaining one-member wards. They suggest half of a county council coming up for election every year. This has not been suggested to us by the County Councils Association or any other body. To my knowledge, many county councils have always existed on the basis of one-member wards, with the whole council coming up for re-election every three years, and we have not had any representations for a change such as is suggested.
The removal of aldermen makes a change in the argument about continuity in county councils, but it has never applied in rural districts which have never had aldermen but which have had whole council elections. Nor has there been any difficulty in councils which have changed to this system, such as Lancashire, which has been regarded as a barometer of county council elections and where in practice this system has not caused any great difficulty in organisation or in general administration.

7.0 p.m.

I would need a lot of persuading that there was real pressure to make the change to county councils coming up by half every other year before acceding to that demand, although I see the point my hon. Friend is trying to make. As for the districts, I am bound to make the same point as I made to the right hon. Member for Deptford, namely, that I do not see we can gain any advantage to democracy by having an election each year but only in part of an area rather than having an election in the whole of an area every other year or, in the county example, by having half the county up every two years, rather than the whole of it every fourth year. It is a question of voting in some areas and not in others, which is far more confusing than where


the whole council is elected at once or where there are annual elections.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend has dealt with the situation raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) about what happens if there is stalemate. Does a council have to go struggling on for four years with an unworkable majority? Is there any way in which it can break that deadlock?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not think that this makes any change to the existing situation. As was said, in Parliament the Prime Minister can always call a General Election. This is no different from what happens when the county councils are elected on a three-year cycle. There are arguments for saying that the greater the period between elections, the greater is the tendency for people not to look over their shoulder all the while, and that may affect the standard of the administration.
I will look at the points that have been raised. I will consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South has said, although I have made it clear that I would need a lot of persuasion that there was a real demand by local authority associations for double-member seats rather than single-member seats as they now exist.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I never asked for double-member seats; nor am I suggesting that there is great pressure for this change. My whole thesis is that no one has thought about it except for the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) who touched upon it in his Second Reading speech and some Amendments which were not discussed or pressed in Committee. What I am hoping is that my hon. and learned Friend will say that he will have further consultations. It does not seem as though the initiative is likely to come from the local authority officers because they have been too busy on other things.

Mr. Carlisle: I am perfectly prepared to consider anything that is put to me about the change in the county councils so that half should come out every other year. However, in all the discussions that have taken place this is not some-

thing that has been pressed by any of the representative bodies. For many years the county councils have worked on the basis of one-member areas with the whole of the county coming out at the same time. It appears to have worked satisfactorily.
The purpose of these Amendments is to meet the arguments so eloquently put forward by so many people that a three-member ward was unattractive for the more scattered rural areas. It was said that many people wanted one-member wards so that there would be some form of connection between the individual councillor and the area represented. These Amendments allow the non-metropolitan districts to choose three-member or one-member, whole council or third of a council elections, depending on what is most appropriate.

Miss Janet Fookes: Miss Janet Fookes(Merton and Morden) I want to return to the case for single-member wards or divisions throughout the country. I listened attentively to the argument produced by the Ministry of State and I regret to say that I found it unconvincing. He made the point that it was inconvenient to have multiple members but I am not sure where the inconvenience lay. He also said that no one had pressed for it. I stress that the ordinary voter who stands to gain most is also the person most confused by the present system and who is not in a position to press for a change.

My hon. and learned Friend said that there was the option in the Government Amendment, but surely this will make for greater confusion if in some parts of the country we have single-member seats and in others multiple-member seats, bearing in mind that people are more mobile than they used to be and may well transfer from one area to another and find themselves with a completely different system. We are always talking about mobility, and this aspect should be considered. I am disappointed that my hon. and learned Friend has not agreed to what seems a logical and simple system of one-member wards and divisions throughout. The case is so logical that better arguments than have so far been used against it must be produced.

I was in local government for some years and I found that there were many


people who did not understand the multiple system one bit. They found it totally confusing. A single-member seat system enables responsibility to be pinned on one councillor. I urge the Minister of State to look at this again.

Mr. John Silkin: By leave of the House. The Minister of State said that these were complex matters and indeed they are. He cannot make the debating point of saying that people have differences about them. This shows clearly that what is needed is real con-

sultation and thought, not only with the appropriate local authority associations but with the political parties too. The House ought to give him the chance to have these consultations, and it is in that spirit, in the spirit that perhaps it will urge him to have these consultations, that I recommend my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 153.

Division No. 294.]
AYES
[7.8 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Astor, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Raison, Timothy


Atkins, Humphrey
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Redmond, Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Havers, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hawkins, Paul
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hicks, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biffen, John
Hiley, Joseph
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Boscawen, Robert
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hordern, Peter
Rost, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bray, Ronald
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Scott, Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hunt, John
Sharpies, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bryan, Paul
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jessel, Toby
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Soref, Harold


Chapman, Sydney
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Speed, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kinsey, J. R.
Spence, John


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Sproat, Iain


Cockeram, Eric
Knox, David
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Lamont, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cordle, John
Lane, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Cormack, Patrick
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, David
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Loveridge, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Luce, R. N.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Dixon, Piers
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tebbit, Norman


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McCrindle, R. A.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Eden, Sir Jqhn
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon. S.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maddan, Martin
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Trew, Peter


Farr, John
Mather, Carol
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fell, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fidler, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Foster, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Fowler, Norman
Murton, Oscar
Weatherill, Bernard


Gardner, Edward
Neave, Airey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gibson-Watt, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Normanton, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Gower, Raymond
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Gray, Hamish
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Green, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Peel, John
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Grylls, Michael
Percival, Ian
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Gurden, Harold
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John



NOES


Abse, Leo
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Albu, Austen
Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Allaun, Frank (Salford. E.)
Ashton, Joe
Booth, Albert


Allen, Scholefield
Atkinson, Norman
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur




Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian


Broughton. Sir Alfred
John, Brynmor
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.)
Pardoe, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood (Green)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Concannon, J, D.
Kelley, Richard
Richard, Ivor


Conlan, Bernard
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cronin, John
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lawson, George
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leonard, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dorman, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank
Tomney, Frank


Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael
Torney, Tom


Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Tuck, Raphael


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J.P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsden, F.
Watkins, David


Hamling, William
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wellbeloved, James


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitlock, William


Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce
Willams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. James Hamilton.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Question accordingly agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 918, in page 5, line 5, after 'of', insert 'metropolitan'.

No. 919, in page 5, line 9, after second 'of', insert 'metropolitan'.

No. 920, in page 5, line 10, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a metropolitan'.

No. 921, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'other than 1973'.

No. 1068, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:

'(5) A non-metropolitan district council may at any time in pursuance of the requisite resolution request the Secretary of State to provide—
(a) for a system of whole council elections, that is to say, the holding of the ordinary elections of all the councillors of the district simultaneously; or
(b) for a system of elections by thirds, that is to say, the election of one-third, as nearly as may be, of the councillors of the

district at the ordinary elections of such councillors in any year;
indicating in the case of a request under paragraph (b) above, those areas, if any, in which there should, and those, if any, in which there should not, be wards each returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three.

In this subsection "the requisite resolution" means in the case of a resolution passed before 1st April, 1974 a resolution passed by a majority, and in the case of a resolution passed on or after that date a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds, of the members voting thereon at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose with notice of the object.

(6)Where the Secretary of State receives a request under subsection (5)(a) above from a district council or does not 1st April, 1974 receive a request from a district council under subsection (5)(b) above, he may make an order providing for the ordinary elections of all the district councillors to be held simultaneously and the order may contain the like provision, and shall be treated, as if made under section 53 below.

(7)Where the Secretary of State receives a request under subsection (5)(b) above from a


district council he may ask the English Commission to make proposals in the light of the request with respect to—

(a) the number, boundaries and names of the wards into which the district should be divided and the number of councillors to be elected for each ward;
(b) the order of retirement of councillors elected for wards not returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three;

and, where the Commission have not completed their review of the electoral arrangements for the district under Schedule 9 to this Act, they shall as part of that review consider the proposals to be made under this subsection and, in any other case, sections 54, 62and 63 below shall apply to the consideration by the Commission of any such proposals as they apply to their conduct of a review under section 52 below and any such proposals shall be treated as if made under section 53 below.

(8) The ordinary election of non-metropolitan district councillors shall take place—

(a) except where an order is in force providing for the election of district councillors by thirds, in 1973, 1976, 1979 and every fourth year thereafter; and
(b) where such an order is in force, in the year when the order comes into force and every year thereafter other than a year of election of county councillors.

(9) The following provisions of this subsection shall, subject to the provisions of any order made under or by virtue of this section, have effect with respect to non-metropolitan district councillors:—

(a) their term of office shall be three years in the case of the councillors elected at the ordinary elections in 1973 ands 1976 and four years in the case of those elected at ordinary elections held thereafter;
(b) except where an order is in force providing for the election of councillors by thirds, the whole number of councillors shall retire together in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and in or after 1976 the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire: and
(c) where such an order is in force, one- third of the whole number of councillors in each ward returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three and, as nearly as may be, one-third of the whole number of councillors in the other wards, being those how have been councillors of the district for the longest time without re-election, shall retire in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and in every such year the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire'—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 8

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS AND WARDS

Amendment made:No. 923, in page 5, line 17, leave out Clause 8—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 9

CONSTITUTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL AND LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 153, in page 5, line 26, after 'but', insert 'subject to subsection (2) below'. I hope it will be convenient to deal also with Government Amendments Nos. 154 to 156, No. 158, Nos. 160 to 163, and Nos. 165 and 166; and Amendment No. 822, in the name of the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir Brandon Rhys Williams), in page 208, line 33, leave out 'one councillor' and insert:
'two councillors until and including the general election of councillors in 1976; and for subsequent elections, Greater London shall be divided by the English Commission into new electoral divisions, with two such new divisions replacing each division existing before that time'.
The main purpose of this group of Amendments is to abolish the post of alderman on the Greater London Council and London borough councils. This is not in any way to belittle the service which so many individuals have rendered to local government as aldermen over the years. We retain some recognition of that service by giving the power to appoint honourary aldermen in future, but there is now general agreement that the system of indirect election to local authority councils should be brought to an end and that the ultimate responsibility should be clearly placed on the shoulders of directly elected councillors.
The present Bill was not intended to envisage second thoughts on London since London government was reformed quite recently, but since we have made no provision for aldermen on any of the authorities outside Greater London, we consider that we could not justify the indefinite retention of the aldermanic system in the Greater London Council and in the London boroughs.
Abolition of aldermen in the Greater can be conveniently made when the authorities concerned are being wholly re-elected. The next normal dates for the Greater London Council elections would be 1973 and 1976 and for the London boroughs 1974 and 1977. In order to allow the councils affected and the political organisations to make the necessary arrangements, the date for abolition has been set at 1976 for the Greater London Council and at 1977 for the London borough councils.
Abolition of aldermen in the Greater London Council and in the London boroughs will reduce the size of those councils by one seventh. Most of the London borough councils have 60 councillors each. That is the limit which by Statute they are allowed, plus the one-sixth, the 10 aldermen. We intend by these Amendments to remove that limitation of 60 in order to give the London boroughs flexibility in re-warding, and it may be that, to make up for the loss of the services of aldermen, they will wish to arrange some re-warding so as to bring their councils up by a few members.
The GLC will be reduced for two reasons, first by the removal of the aldermen from the present 116 councillors on the Greater London Council, and secondly by operation of the London Government Act, which carried out the principle of the old London County Council of councillors being elected for parliamentary constituencies. It was not possible to carry that out at once under the London Government Act, 1963, but it was always intended that that should be so, and it is now being brought into operation—not under this Bill but otherwises—sothat at the next GLC election it will be an election for 92 councillors. So there is a substantial reduction from 116 councillors and aldermen on the Greater London Council to 92, but that will make the GLC comparable in size to the county councils in the rest of the country, and the range of functions is, broadly, comparable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), by his Amendment—if I may mention it even before he does—does not think that the resulting 92 for the Greater London Council will be sufficient. It provides for an increase to 200 coun-

cillors now, and to 184 in 1976. I cannot think that a large council of that size could be a wieldy or effective unit of local government. I should have thought that the 92 is sufficient, and certainly that the doubling of this to 184, or, for a period, having as many as 200, would make the council an ineffective unit of local government.
There may be need to think again about the number of councillors for a London borough, and also to decide whether a London borough or the GLC wish to adopt the same election pattern as most of the rest of the country, and so Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 make provision for that to be introduced by order of the Secretary of State.
The abolition of the aldermen in London does, I think, make it necessary for the London borough councils to consider re-warding. There is no compulsion; it is merely permissive for them so to do, if they themselves wish to ask the Secretary of State to make an order to deal with that.
As to the timing, in all these provisions and the orders which, under them, may be made by the Secretary of State, the intention is that orders under this new subsection should take effect so as to coincide with the disappearance of the aldermen; that is to say, in time for the elections to the GLC in 1976 and to the London boroughs in 1977.

Mr. John Silkin: On behalf of this side of the House I very much welcome, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the phased abolition of aldermen in London. We did argue the point—eloquently in the case of my right hon. Friend, briefly in my case—in Committee, and we are glad to see that the Government have listened to us.
There are one or two minor points which I have in general on this. I quite follow that there must be certain consequentials if one is to reduce the number of those who sit in County Hall, and, of course, that is right; but there are some things which mildly trouble me. For example, in the group of Amendments of which we have just very narrowly disposed in the vote on No. 960, non-metropolitan districts may opt for annual or quadrennial elections while metropolitan districts will have annual elections. Paragraph (b) in Amendment No.


154—I cannot find it here, but I remember the point—talks of elections taking place in the same year as district council elections. "District council elections" can mean either metropolitan or non-metropolitan. If we are to allow non-metropolitan councils to opt for which particular year they are going to have elections this minor but interesting drafting point ought to be cleared up. That is the first point which I wanted to make.
There is, however, another point of greater substance, and it is this. The Amendment, I think rightly, delays the implementation of annual elections in Greater London till after there has been an affirmative order of both Houses of Parliament, and this is right. There seems to be something like a major difference of opinion in London as to whether it wants to go for annual elections or for quadrennial elections. I take it, and I am sure the Minister can reassure me on this, that part of the reason why this has not been brought out at the moment and is being left to an affirmative order in due course is that it is a question which can be sorted out, as far as London is concerned, through discussions through what, for local government, are the usual channels
It may seem a little strange that I should appear to be arguing rather the other way as far as London is concerned, but the reason is that London, as the Minister is aware, is touched only peripherally in this Bill. Indeed, I can remember his stern young hon. Friend the then Under-secretary of State reproving me once or twice in Committee for my frivolity in discussing London at all. I deem it a great privilege and pleasure to be allowed just by a side-wind to discuss my native city.
So there is a difference here. I am sure the Minister has taken into consideration the necessity for having consultations on when and if these new systems of elections in London should take place.

7.30 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: In considering this group of Amendments there are two points which concern me with which I can deal briefly. In Amendment No. 154, by affirmative Resolution, the Minister seeks to take power to secure that elections of coun-

cillors to the Greater London Council take place in the same years as ordinary elections of county councillors—that is unexceptionable—and paragraph (b) correspondingly may require changes in the arrangement for the election of London borough councillors.
The point on which I should like the Minister's guidance is the implication of paragraph (c) which refers to Clause 7(4). Clause 7(4) provides that one-third of the councillors in each ward shall retire in every ordinary year of election. The implication is that those London boroughs which have wards with numbers of councillors which are not divisible by three will be required to undertake a process of re-warding. This requires a major upheaval which is perhaps not necessary just for the sake of bringing London into conformity with the rest of the country, or at any rate not necessary as a matter of haste.
My borough, after the amalgamation of Chelsea and Kensington, decided that the system of warding was so anomalous that it needed to be brought into line. It has taken a surprisingly long time to produce a scheme which is fully acceptable to everyone. The amount of work required, the degree of negotiation and the potential for ill-feeling and misunderstanding must not be under-estimated. I therefore express the hope that the powers which the Secretary of State is seeking to take in Amendment No. 154 will not be used too soon so that London is plunged back into the upheaval which accompanied the reorganisation of London boroughs.
Much the most important issue arises in Amendment No. 165. My hon. Friend has dealt with why it has been decided that the aldermen have to go, and I do not want to go over all that again. But it is worthy of a moment's consideration whether we are not asking councillors of the GLC in future to take on more than is reasonable. We are not only reducing their numbers by the number of aldermen, namely from 116 to 100, but, by the constituency reorganisation, bringing them down to 92. I have not had the privilege of serving as a member of the Greater London Council, but those members of the Council whom I know—and that includes several hon. Members—stress the special nature and responsibilities of councillors in the GLC. I have


several times heard the view expressed that there is too much work for the councillors to be able to fulfil their responsibilities, particularly as committee members, in the way they would like. The amount of work in local government is likely to increase, rather than the reverse, and I feel anxiety that we may be making provisions which will place too great burdens on the GLC councillors and which will result in a decline in democratic representation in London.
The Minister implied that representation in London did not need to be different from representation in any other major authority. Speaking not just as a Londoner but, I hope, as a man of common sense, I think it is reasonable to suggest that the responsibilities of councillors in London are of a special character and that we should give consideration to increasing the number.
The idea that the wards for the election of Greater London councillors should correspond to the parliamentary constituencies is so good that we do not want to lose it. Therefore, my Amendment suggests that there should be two GLC representatives for each parliamentary constituency. Any other suggestion would result in the boundaries again being blurred. A suggestion to double the number of course means a fairly sharp increase in representation, namely, from the present 116 to 184. While I can see that my hon. Friend is not disposed to think that number would make a wieldy or convenient unit, I hope that he will find ways of alleviating the burden on Greater London councillors. With the passage of time we may well find that we have to return to the idea of increasing the numbers.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: I have not so far intervened in debates on the Bill, so it would be an impertinence for me to keep the House for more than a moment. In my capacity not as Member of Parliament for my constituency but as GLC nominated Member and therefore the Member who sponsors GLC Bills in the House, I believe that the Minister is making a mistake in abolishing the aldermen in London. His arguments bear no relation to the merits of London, but are designed simply to bring London into

line with the rest of the country, in itself a somewhat strange constitutional doctrine for a country whose boast has always been that we do not have a written constitution and we do not have a very harmonious pattern, but it works. On the whole, that has been true of the nation, and it is a pity in the interests of orderliness to depart from it in local government.
In central government the government of the day, whether Conservative or Labour, frequently rely on the House of Lords, not because of any great merit of the hereditary peerage, but because the House of Lords enables Governments of both parties to bring into Government people whose expertise and skills are necessary. The GLC requires this same facility to bring in to its government and its administration people who are not necessarily elected.
It would obviously be undesirable for more than a handful of people to be brought in in this way, but the aldermen have provided a great boon, a great asset, to the GLC. I believe, and many other people connected with the GLC believe, that the Government are making a mistake in this Measure, and I wish at least to put that on record before the Minister passes to the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: I will deal briefly with the points that have been raised. The last point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminister (Mr. Tugendhat) we have argued fully in Committee, and I do not think the House would wish me again to go into those arguments. I appreciate the view of my hon. Friend and a number of other people that aldermen have done such service to the country already that we should not abolish them, but I think that the principles of democracy now demand that we should rely entirely in local government on the elected member.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) raised a drafting point. If he will be good enough—as he always is—to let me have the Amendment, I will undertake to look at the drafting point. I think that he has something there.
On the issue of annual or quadrennial elections, we have taken powers to proceed by order, after consultation with all those concerned. The last thing I wanted


to do was to rush it into the Bill. That is why we have taken those powers for the Secretary of State. In using the phrase "taking powers" I am repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said. We are taking those powers for the benefit of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs to enable us to do what they want us to do. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Secretary of State ordering something which is not wanted by those local authorities.
I will look into the point about London boroughs which have wards with more than three members. I have no doubt that they would not wish to reward so soon after they had gone into the wards so fully.
I do not wish to be dogmatic about the number of councillors on the GLC, and we shall receive further representations. It has been accepted, both before the London Government Act, 1963, and since, that the right course is to base the wards of the GLC on the parliamentary constituencies. Faced with that conclusion, I have not found a mathematical solution. I am sure my hon. Friends solution of doubling the parliamentary constituencies and producing a council of 184 is wrong. However, I do not want to be dogmatic about the number of 92, and if the GLC put forward any suggestions on this we will do all we can to help.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 154, in page 5, line 28, at end add—

(2) The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act as appears to him to be appropriate for all or any of the following purposes—
(a) to secure that ordinary elections of councillors of the Greater London Council take place in the same years as ordinary elections of county councillors,
(b) to secure that ordinary elections of London borough councillors are held in years in which ordinary elections of district councillors are held, and
(c) to secure that provisions corresponding to section 7(4) above apply to the retirement of London borough councillors.

(3) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliaments—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

CONSTITUTION ANDS MEMBERSHIP OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL AND LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS

Amendment made: No. 155 in page 205, line 27, leave out 'aldermen'.

No. 156, in page 205, line 32, leave out 'aldermen'.

No. 158, in page 205, line 38, leave out from 'the' to 'councillors' in line 39.

No. 577, in page 206, line 14, at end insert—
(2) If, apart from paragraph 2(3) above or paragraph 4(2) below, the person presiding at the meeting would have ceased to be a member of the council, he shall not be entitled to vote in the election except in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) below.

No. 160, in page 206, leave out lines 15 and 16.

No. 578, in page 206, line 18, leave out from 'vote' to end of line 19 and insert:
'in addition to any other vote he may have'.

No. 161, in page 206, line 39, leave out 'an alderman or' and insert 'a'.

No. 902, in page 206, line 43, at end insert:
'(whether or not he continues until that time to be a councillor)'—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: On a point or order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it would be of any assistance, all the Amendments on page No. 11161 of the Paper other than Amendment No. 882, can be moved formally.

Amendments made: No. 903, in page 207, line 5, at end insert:

No. 559, in page 207, line 5, at end insert:
(4) A London borough council may pay the deputy mayor such allowance as the council think reasonable for the purpose of enabling him to meet the expenses of his office.

No. 162, in page 207, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 208.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

No. 163, in page 208, line 31, at beginning insert—
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.

No. 164, in page 208, line 36, leave out from first 'made' to end of line 37 and insert:
 "under Part IV of this Act'.

No. 165, in page 208, line 39, at end insert:

(2) Until provision is made as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above by an order under Part IV of this Act, the number of councillors for each ward in a London borough shall be such as is specified in the provision of the charter for the borough or, as the case may be, of an order under Part III of Schedule 1 to the 1963 Act amending that charter, which is in force on the coming into operation of Part IV of this Act.

(3) So much of section (14) of the 1963 Act as limits the number of councillors of a London borough to 60 shall cease to have effect.

10. This Part of this Schedule shall have effect subject to the provisions of Part II below.

PART II

Aldermen

11.—
(1) The offices of alderman of the Greater London Council and alderman of a London borough shall cease to exist on the relevant date, as defined in sub-paragraph (2) below, but until that date the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule shall have effect.

(2) In this Part of this Schedule 'the relevant date',—
(a) in relation to the Greater London Council, means the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of councillors of the Greater London Council in 1976 or such other year as may be specified for the purposes of this sub-paragraph in an order under section 9(2) above, and
(b) in relation to a London borough, means the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of London borough councillors in 1977 or such other year as may be so specified.

12.—(1) The aldermen of the Greater London Council and of a London borough shall be elected by the Council or, as the case may be by the council of the borough, from among the councillors or persons, qualified to be councillors.

(2) The number of aldermen shall be one-sixth of the whole number of councillors, or if that number is not divisible by six, of the highest number below that number which is so divisible.

(3) If a person holding either the office of councillor or the office of alderman is elected to and accepts the other of those offices, the first office shall thereupon become vacant.

13—(1) An ordinary election of aldermen shall be held in 1973 in the case of the Greater London Council, and in 1974 in the case of a London borough.

(2) Except in so far as aldermen are required to retire in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) below, the term of office of aldermen of the Greater London Council or of a London borough who either hold that office at the passing of this Act or are elected thereto after the passing of this Act shall expire at the relevant date.

(3) In the year in which an ordinary election of aldermen of the Greater London Council or a London borough is held in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above, one-half as near as may be of the whole number of aldermen of that Council or borough, namely those who have been aldermen for the longest time without re-election, shall retire immediately after the election of the new aldermen, who shall come into office on that day.

14.—(1) The election of aldermen in accordance with paragraph 13(1) above shall be held at the annual general meeting of the Greater London Council or, as the case may be, the London borough council, and shall take place immediately after the election of the chairman or mayor.

(2) An alderman shall not, as such, vote at the election of an alderman.

(3) Every person entitled to vote may vote for any number of persons, not exceeding the number of vacancies to be filled, signing and delivering at the meeting to the person presiding at the meeting a voting paper containing the full names and places of residence and descriptions of the persons for whom he votes.

(4) The person presiding at the meeting shall, as soon as all the voting papers have been delivered to him, proceed to ascertain the result of the voting and state the number of votes given to each person and shall then deliver the voting papers to the proper officer of the council, to be kept for six months.

(5) In the case of an equality of votes, the person presiding at the meeting shall give a casting vote, whether or not he voted or was entitled to vote in the first instance.

(6) The person presiding at the meeting shall declare to be elected as many persons as there are vacancies to be filled, being the persons who receive the greatest numbers of votes, or if fewer persons than those vacancies receive votes, all the persons who receive votes.

(7) If fewer persons than those vacancies receive votes, an election to fill the remaining vacancies shall be held at the next ordinary meeting of the council, and any person elected at that election shall be treated for the purposes of paragraph 13 above as having been elected at the ordinary election of aldermen.

(8) The minutes of the proceedings of the meeting shall include the full names and places of residence and descriptions of the persons for whom votes were given and the names of the persons by whom they were given respectively.

15.—(1) Until the relevant date. Part I above shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) Paragraph 1 above shall have effect as if—
(a) after the word 'chairman', in sub-paragraph (1), and
(b) after the word 'mayor', in sub-paragraph (2),
there were inserted the word 'aldermen'.

(3) Paragraphs 2(1) and 5(1) above shall have effect as if any reference therein to a councillor included a reference to an alderman.

(4) An outgoing alderman shall not, as such, vote at the election of the chairman of the Greater London Council or of the mayor of a London borough.

16. The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of provisions of this Act, other than this Schedule, which refer to aldermen as seem to him appropriate to remove those references with effect from the relevant date.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 10

PARISH MEETINGS AND COUNCILS

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move Amendment No. 166, in page 5, line 40, leave out 'is 300 or more' and insert:
includes 200 or more local government electors'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to discuss also Government Amendments Nos. 167, 168 and 171.

Mr. Speed: Clause 10 provides for the establishment of parish councils in parishes in certain circumstances, it being compulsory for councils to be established in the more populous parishes and permissive in the less popular ones. The provision follows closely the precedent of the Local Government Act, 1933, Section 43.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) tabled a number of Amendments and argued cogently that it would be sensible to relate the parish size for this purpose to the electorate rather than the total population. The purpose of those Amendments was, first, to relate the criterion to the number of adults in the parish as a better measure of the need of the parish for a parish council and, second, to the practical advantage of having a number which is precisely defined each year in the electoral register, whereas the total population is precisely defined only at censuses which occur every 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir Richard Sharpies) promised to consider this in Committee and these Government Amendments have been introduced accordingly. They give a very practical and precise definition and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 167, in page 6, line 1, leave out from 'parish' to first ' the' in line 2 and insert:
'the population of which includes more than 150 but less than 200 local government electors'.

No. 168, in page 6, line 4, leave out 'of less than 200' and insert:
'which includes not more than 150 local government electors'.

No. 169, in page 6, line 12, leave out 'and'.

No. 170, in page 6, line 15, at end insert:
'and
(d) every parish constituted under Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 11

POWER TO DISSOLVE PARISH COUNCILS IN SMALL PARISHES

Amendment made: No. 171, in page 6, line 29, leave out 'is less than 200' and insert:
includes not more than 150 local government electors'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 14

CONSTITUTION OF PARISH MEETING, ETC.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 883, in page 8, line 20, leave out 'representative body if they' and insert:
'parish council in the case of a parish having a separate parish council or the parish trustees in any other case, if that council or those trustees'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 884, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 1018, 894, 1019, 906, and 1045.

Mr. Speed: These Amendments are very much inter-related. Basically, there are some 3,000-odd small parishes which have no parish council and which need a formal body to hold property and other moneys in trust for the parish. Under the 1933 Act, this function is performed by a representative body consisting of the parish meeting chairman and the persons representing the parish on the district council, and there is special provision where these two gentlemen happen to be the same person.
This has been unsatisfactory in two respects: the title of the body is misleading and the body itself seems to have had an uncertain existence. There have been cases where a parish council has been set up and has discovered years later the existence of parish property of which no one has been aware.
The proposals in the Amendments therefore change the composition of the body to be the chairman of the parish meeting—to provide a local representative element—and the "proper officer" appointed by the district council, to provide continuity in the professional element. To mirror this change in composition, the title of the new body established is changed to the more appropriate one of "parish trustees". The Amendment is acceptable to the local authority associations and has the support of the National Association of Parish Councils. This is a simple and straightforward tidying-up of what has been a difficult and anomalous position.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 884, in page 8, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert—
(3) In a parish not having a separate parish council the chairman of the parish meeting and the proper officer of the district council shall be a body corporate by the name of 'parish trustees' with the addition of the name of the parish.

No. 885, in page 8, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.

No. 886, in page 8, line 39, leave out 'representative body' and insert 'parish trustees'.

No. 887, in page 8, line 41, leave out 'representative body' and insert 'parish trustees.

No. 1045, in page 8, line 45, leave out 'members of the body' and insert:
persons who are the parish trustees".—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 15

CONSTITUTION AND POWERS OF PARISH COUNCIL

Amendment made: No. 319, in page 9, leave out line 5 and insert:
' "The Parish Council" with the addition of the name of the particular parish'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 16

CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN OF PARISH COUNCIL OR MEETING

Amendment made: No. 316, in page 9, line 14, at end insert:
'and if, apart from subsection (6) below, the person presiding at the meeting would have ceased to be a member of the parish council, he shall not be entitled to vote in the election except in accordance with subsection (3) below
(3) In the case of an equality of votes in the election of a chairman the person presiding at the meeting shall give a casting vote in addition to any other vote he may have.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 17

PARISH COUNCILLORS

Amendment made: No. 933, in page 9, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) Subject to any provision included in an order by virtue of section 69 below and to the provisions of paragraphs 11 and 11A of Schedule 3 to this Act, the ordinary elections of parish councillors shall take place in 1976, 1979 and every fourth year thereafter, their term of office shall be three years in the case of those elected at the ordinary elections in 1976 and four years in the case of those elected at ordinary elections held thereafter, and the whole number of parish councillors shall retire together in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire'.—[Mr Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND

Amendments made: No. 730, in page 209,fi line 14, after 'out', insert
'either before or after the passing of this Act'

No. 924, in page 209, line 19, leave out 8(a)' and insert '7(1A)(a)'.

No. 461, in page 209, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (1).

No. 925, in page 209, line 21, after 'ward', insert 'of a metropolitan district'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, Amendment No. 981, in page 210, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert:
'by the committee established for the area under section 252 above'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments:

No. 982, in page 210, line 29, leave out 'the authority designated under paragraph 6' and insert:
'an authority designated by the committee established for the area of the new council under section 252'.

No. 983, in page 210, line 39, leave out 'as mentioned in paragraph 6' and insert:
by the committee established for the area of the council under section 252'.

No. 984, in page 211, line 3, at end insert:
'(8A) The Secretary of State may himself exercise a committee's power of designation for the purposes of any provision of paragraph 6, 7 or 8 above if he is requested to do so on the ground that the committee is unlikely to exercise the power in time for that provision to operate'.

No. 986, in Schedule 5, page 225, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert:
'by the committee established for the area under section 252 above'.

No. 987, in page 225, line 31, leave out 'the authority designated under paragraph 6 'and insert:
an authority designated by the committee established for the area of the new council under section 252'.

No. 998, in page 225, line 41, leave out 'as mentioned in paragraph 7' and insert:
'by the committee established for the area of the new council under section 252'.

No. 989, in page 226, line 3, at end insert:
'(9A) The Secretary of State may himself exercise a committee's power of designation for the purposes of any provision of paragraph 7, 8 or 9 above if he is requested to do so on the ground that the committee is unlikely to exercise the power in time for that provision to operate'.

Mr. Speed: These Amendments are inter-related. Some apply to England and some apply to Wales but they deal with the same point.
The Amendments deal with the machinery for the first meeting of the new county and district councils: accept-

ance of office, convening and chairing of the meeting and the selection of standing orders. In each case, it is for the joint committee of existing authorities under Clause 252 to make the decision, or for the Secretary of State to act if asked to do so in default. The first four Amendments affect Schedule 3 which deals with authorities in England. The last four are identical Amendments to Schedule 5 for the Principality.
The Amendments are needed because the Clause 252 committees are now to be mandatory following Amendments which were made in Committee and so will have primary responsibility in each case. At the same time, we have revised the drafting to meet misunderstanding of the previous words and have taken the opportunity to enable a Clause 252 committee to spread the initial functions: to nominate the clerk of one constituent authority to receive declaration of acceptance of office; the clerk of another to convene the meeting and issue the summonses to attend; while the meeting is held under the standing orders of another authority.
The initial chairman and vice-chairman to open the proceedings and conduct the election of the new council chairman, which will be the first business of the new authority, could be members of a fourth and fifth constituent authority or could be any other persons nominated by the Clause 252 committee. If he is not a councillor, he does not have any vote on the election of the council chairman, other than a casting vote if need be.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales may intervene in default for any of these purposes but only if asked on the grounds that the committee is unlikely to reach a decision in time—that is, if the committee is immovably deadlocked. Thus the initiative for intervention from the Secretary of State must come from a request to intervene, but this request can be made by anyone—for example, by the deadlocked committee or by one or more constituent authorities. Thus this is very much of a reserve power which it should not be necessary for the Secretary of State to use.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 982, in page 210, line 29, leave out "the


authority designated under paragraph 6" and insert:
an authority designated by the committee established for the area of the new council under section 252".

No. 983, in page 210, line 39, leave out "as mentioned in paragraph 6" and insert:
by the committee established for the area or the council under section 252".

No. 984, in page 211, line 3, at end insert:
(8A) The Secretary of State may himself exercise a committee's power of designation for the purposes of any provision of paragraph 6, 7 or 8 above if he is requested to do so on the ground that the committee is unlikely to exercise the power in time for that provision to operate.

No. 176, in page 211, line 17, leave out "each" and insert "the corresponding".

No. 177, in page 211, line 17, at end add:

(2) Until provision is made to the contrary under Part I or Part IV of this Act, the provisions of this sub-paragraph shall have effect with respect to the number of councillors for parishes constituted under Part V of Schedule I above, that is to say—
(a) if the area of the parish is co-extensive with that of a borough not divided into wards, the number of councillors for the parish shall be the same as the total number of councillors and aldermen for the borough;
(b) if the area of the parish is co-extensive with that of a borough which is divided into wards, the parish shall be divided into the same wards for the purpose of elections of parish councillors and the number of councillors to be elected for each parish ward shall be four-thirds of the number of councillors for the corresponding ward of the borough;
(c) if the area of the parish is co-extensive with that of an urban district not divided into wards, the number of councillors for the parish shall be the same as the number of councillors for the urban district;
(d) if the area of the parish is co-extensive with that of an urban district which is divided into wards, the parish shall be divided into the same wards for the purpose of elections of parish councillors and the number of councillors to be elected for each parish ward shall be the same as the number of councillors for the corresponding ward of the urban district;
and the numbers referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above shall be determined by reference to the electoral arrangements in the borough or urban district at the date on which the parish is constituted.

No. 178, in page 212, line 6, leave out "1975" and insert "1976".

No. 179, in page 212, line 21, after "1974", insert "or 1975".

No. 180, in page 212, line 23, after "1974", insert "or 1975".

No. 181, in page 212, line 25, leave out "1975" and insert "1976".

No. 1046, in page 213, line 5, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.

No. 182, in page 213, line 22, at end insert:

(13) The foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect subject to the provisions of paragraph 11A below.

11A.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall apply in relation to a parish constituted under Part V of Schedule 1 above and to the borough or urban district the area of which is co-extensive with that of the parish; and, in relation to such a parish,—
(a) references in this paragraph to the order are references to the order under the said Part V constituting the parish, and
(b) references in this paragraph to the borough or urban district are references to the borough or urban district the area of which is co-extensive with that of the parish.

(2) As from the date specified in the order, the parish councillors shall be the aldermen and councillors for the time being of the borough or as the case may be, the councillors for the time being of the urban district and, if the parish is divided into wards in accordance with paragraph 9(2) above,—
(a) the councillors of the borough or urban district, in their capacity as parish councillors, shall be treated as having been elected for the wards of the parish corresponding to the wards of the borough or urban district for which they were elected; and
(b) in the case of a borough, each of the aldermen shall be treated, in his capacity as a parish councillor, as having been elected for such ward of the parish as shall be determined at a meeting of the parish council held within fourteen days after the date specified in the order.

(3) Each person who becomes a parish councillor by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above shall (unless he resigns his office or it other wise becomes vacant) continue to hold that office until the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of parish councillors in 1976.

(4) Until 1st April 1974 the persons for the time being holding office as mayor and deputy mayor of the borough or, as the case may be, as chairman and vice-chairman of the council of the urban district shall, by virtue of those offices, hold office as chairman and vice-chairman of the parish council, respectively; and the persons who, by virtue of this sub-paragraph, hold office as chairman and vice-chairman of the parish council immediately before 1st April 1974 shall (subject to section 16 below) continue to hold those offices on and after that date as if they had been elected to them at the annual meeting of the parish council held in 1973.

(5) Where this paragraph applies to a parish, then, as from the date specified in the order, paragraph 11(1) above shall not apply in relation to elections to fill casual vacancies in the office of councillor of the borough or urban district, as the case may be, and any casual vacancy which has not been filled on that date shall be deemed for the purposes of the 1933 Act to have arisen on that date; and a councillor elected after that date to fill a casual vacancy shall, unless he resigns his office or it otherwise becomes vacant, continue to hold office until 1st April 1974.

(6) Where this paragraph applies to a parish, sub-paragraph (11)(c) and (12) of paragraph 11 above shall not apply in relation to the borough or urban district, as the case may be; and in the case of a borough any person appointed to fill a casual vacancy in the office of alderman of the borough shall be treated, in his capacity as a parish councillor, as having been elected for the same ward of the parish as that for which his predecessor as alderman was treated as having been elected by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above or this sub-paragraph.

No. 934, in page 213, line 46, leave out from 'councillors' to 'occurring' in line 1 on page 214.

No. 935, in page 214, line 1 [Schedule 3], leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

No. 936, in page 214, line 6 [Schedule 3], leave out from 'councillors' to end of line 7.

No. 937, in page 214, line 8 [Schedule 3], leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 41

REGISTRATION OFFICERS

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 229, in page 20, line 19, at end add:
'or where there are two or more districts within one constituency then the councils of the districts may appoint an officer of one of the councils to be the registration officer for the whole of that constituency'.
The Clause concerns that very important funtionary, the registration officer, the person whose duty it is to register the electors in a constituency for either parliamentary or local government elections. Under the Clause as drafted, that responsibility must be given to a specific officer within a district. That is reinforced in the case of London, where the Common Council of the Cities of London and Westminster will appoint its own registration officer for the City part.
A conflict or confusion could arise between constituencies and districts, par-

ticularly between now and the report of the next boundary commission for parliamentary elections. In some districts there are a number of constituencies. In some constituencies there are a number of districts.
All that the Amendment seeks to do is to make one officer of one district the responsible registration officer for the whole of the constituency if the districts get together and agree that that should be so rather than a separate registration officer having to be provided for each part of the constituency because it happens to be in separate districts.
We all know to our cost that during the course of an election it often transpires that not only a few voters or a few houses but a whole street mysteriously is not on the register because someone has slipped up. All hon. Members know that it is always 100 per cent. one's own supporters that seem to be missing from the register. The more people there are as registration officers, the greater the risk of such an error creeping in. If one man is responsible for the whole register of a constituency there is less risk.
A more practical point is that many election registers are compiled, not on a district basis, but on a constituency basis by means of computer techniques. This is a swifter and sometimes safer way of producing a register, because the necessary material can be fed into the computer and much time can be saved.
If the basis is transferred to a rigidly district basis, rather than the current constituency basis, again there could be cause of confusion and omissions from the register. The Amendment is designed to help where there are a number of districts within one constituency. In Standing Committee the then Minister of State said that he would consider the matter and discuss it with the political parties, who are most concerned about this, because they have the problem of dealing with the registration officers.

Mr. Carlisle: As the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has said, this is a small point which he raised in Committee. The effect of the Amendment would be that where a constituency includes two or more districts the council should be able to appoint an officer as registration officer for the whole constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for


Sutton and Cheam (Sir Richard Sharpies) undertook in Committee to look into this matter, because there is an obvious difficulty. It was pointed out in Committee that there are provisions in Schedule 6 for the Home Secretary to make regulations about registration.
As my hon. Friend then forecast, there has been a meeting of representatives of the political parties and the local authorities to discuss the problem which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew to our attention. The outcome of the meeting is that they have concluded that the inevitable difficulties arising could be resolved by regulations designating one of what would be potentially several registration officers in a constituency straddling more than one district to be the co-ordination officer for registration, and laying a duty on the others to meet his requirements. That designation would also provide one registration officer for each constituency to whom both the electors and the parties could refer.
I understand that this proposal is acceptable to the political parties and to the local authority bodies which have considered the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that this meets his point.

Mr. Oakes: By leave of the House. In view of what the Minister of State has said, it is obvious that my point is being met by regulation as distinct from Statute. Therefore, I am happy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 43

RETURNING OFFICERS AT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 230, in page 21, leave out lines 31 to 37 and insert:
(1) The returning officer at an election of a councillor of a County Council shall be an officer of the district council which includes the electoral area for which the election is held. If an electoral area is contained partly in one and partly in another district, the proper officer of the county council shall designate an officer of one of these districts as returning officer.
(2) Every district council shall appoint an officer of the council to be the returning officer for the elections of councillors of the district and an officer of the council to be the return-

ing officer for elections of councillors of parishes or communities within the district..
This Amendment deals, not with registration officers, but with returning officers. It seeks to apply the principle which was applied to London by the London Government Act, 1963,namely that an officer of the district council shall be the returning officer for all county council elections.
We have tabled the Amendment because this arrangement is very sensible and it has to worked very well in London since 1963. In practice, many county returning officers have delegated their powers and duties to an acting returning officer who obviously has a much more intimate knowledge of the area with which he is dealing.

8.0 p.m.

The other point is that a local officer is more readily available to candidates and to their election agents, and he is able to get ahead with preparations for an election without having to sit back or telephone and await instructions from the county officer. There could be some confusion if a county officer were to reserve some or all of the duties to himself; candidates and their election agents could be confused as to who is dealing with what. Even greater confusion could be caused if it were a county returning officer and not a man intimately connected with the district in the case of independent candidates. Although the two, or even three, main parties often have a knowledgeable election agent who knows his way around, who can deal with the returning officer, and knows which people to deal with, an independent candidate, who has every right to stand, is not so knowledgeable and it is even more confusing in his case to have a county officer rather than the immediate district officer.

Basically we say that this has worked very well in London, and what is good enough for London is good enough for the rest of the country when we are reorganising local government.

Mr. Carlisle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter has been raised before in Committee, and I would be the last to suggest that there is any great point of principle here. It is a question whether the county returning officer should be responsible or whether it should be an


individual district officer. As I say, either arrangement would work.
This matter was considered in detail in committee. The Government still feel that on balance there is an advantage in having one county returning officer to co-ordinate the arrangements for elections of county councillors and to ensure consistency in these arrangements. It is at county level that the notification of resignation or vacation of office will be known, and the county council has to declare the office to be vacant.
I have no strong feelings either way. The intention is that the county returning officer will have the power to appoint district officers to deputise for him, and he will no doubt do so. The Government believe that on balance their proposals are right. I do not think I can say any more except that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make further representations to me privately I will be prepared to look at the matter again.

Mr. Oakes: I agree that this is not a matter on which one would seek to divide the House, but I should like to emphasise the point which I have already made about having a man on the spot available, rather than a more distant person. I think this would be of considerable assistance not so much to the party candidate as to the independent candidate, the man who has no election agent and no one with experience to look after him. He needs one such person, and that person should be on the spot.
I shall make certain written representations to the hon. Gentleman. I do not seek to divide the House on this matter; it is a question of balance. But I hope that having made those further representations, the hon. Gentleman will have another look at this point, perhaps in another place, with a view to meeting this request, particularly as it affects the independent candidate.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 44

CONDUCT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 511, in page 22, line 9, leave out 'Subject to subsection (3) below'.
It might be convenient to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 512, 513 and 514.
The effect of these Amendments is to provide that a casual vacancy on a parish or community council would be filled in accordance with rules made under Clause 44. As the Bill stands, any such vacancy would be filled by co-option.
This matter was gone into in Committee and as a result a subsequent meeting was held with the local authority associations and the political parties at which agreement between all parties was reached. The agreement is that any casual vacancy on a parish or community council should be filled in the manner prescribed by the rules. The rules will provide that if two local government electors for the area request it in writing within 14 days of public notice of a vacancy, an election should be held within 42 days of the request. If the vacancy comes within the fourth year of the parish councillor's terms of office or if no such request is made, the parish council will have power to co-opt. If it comes within the first three years and there is a request by two councillors there will be a duty to have an election within 42 days.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 512, in page 22, line 17, at end insert:
'and references in those Acts to parish election rules shall be construed as references to such local election rules as relate to the conduct of elections of councillors for parishes or communities'.

No. 513, in page 22, line 18, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Carlisle.]

No. 938, in page 22, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 28, and insert:

'When the following ordinary elections fall to be held in the same year, that is to say—
(a) the ordinary election of district councillors for any district ward; and
(b) the ordinary election of parish or community councillors for any parish or community, or any parish or community ward, which is co-extensive with or situated in that district ward;
the polls at those elections'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. John Pardoe: I beg to move, Amendment No. 269, in page 22, line 34, after 'area', insert:
'together with the cost of printing and distributing an election address for each candidate'.


I intend to be very brief in moving this Amendment. It is no more than a probing attempt to find out what the Government intend, and it is about the cost of democracy.
It will be seen that what I am seeking is some kind of assurance about the escalating cost of democracy and particularly local democracy. I do not believe that the cost of getting elected should debar anyone from getting on to a local council any more than it should debar George McGovern from being elected President of the United States. While the finances of American politics stopped Senator Humphrey from being elected President last year and there is a possibility that they may well stop George McGovern from being elected this time, I do not think we want that sort of thing to be introduced into our politics in this country.
This Bill will create very large local government areas by comparison with what we have now. It will create much larger wards and we shall have far fewer councillors. The cost of distributing and printing to cover one ward alone will in some cases be as much as is now incurred in printing and distribution in a General Election—nay, more, because in a General Election in a constituency of 60,000 our distribution costs are paid. They are completely free. We have to bear the cost of printing but the distribution of one election address is free.
I am arguing that one piece of literature should be distributed free and I am going further in suggesting that the cost of printing should also be covered. The Government may say "What is the cost of printing?" It might be one thing for one candidate and another thing for another candidate. Obviously some limitation would have to be applied, and I accept that.
It may be all right when the parties are putting up candidates; the present system may suffice, though, knowing as I do the state of the finances of all three political parties, I doubt whether it will remain all right for much longer. On the last Amendment reference was made to the problem for the independent candidate. The independent candidate has a perfect right to stand. The trouble is that with these very large wards and

electorates he will not be able to stand unless he is a rich man or is able to get from his friends and associates hundreds of pounds to get out one piece of literature alone.
Communication is essential to democracy. People ought to vote on issues, they ought to know what sort of person their candidate is, and what he stands for. In a small local ward at present, the candidate may well be known to almost everyone, or at least to one member of every household. This will no longer be true in the much larger areas, so the candidate will have to use the means of communication open to him to put the issues and his views across. He cannot do that unless he is provided with the cash.
There will be real danger if the cost of our elections becomes too great. Those who pay the piper call the tune. Whether it be private donors to a political party, or whether it be institutional donors such as big business or the trade unions, when they find themselves having to pay substantial sums towards the cost of elections, they start to think more and more about demanding that their choice of tune be exercised.
I believe that the situation will get out of hand within a matter of years, if it is not already out of hand, and I want to know what the Government intend. What do they think of providing as a measure of help to local candidates in election campaigns?

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: When I last followed the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), in an earlier debate, I disagreed totally with what he said. On this occasion, I agree with half of what he said. There is a danger of escalating costs in local elections preventing people from standing. This does not apply only to the independent candidate. We all know in our own areas that on occasion the Labour Party will not put up a candidate in a fairly safe Conservative local Government seat, or the Conservatives will not put up a candidate in a fairly strong Labour area, simply in order to save money. This deprives the electorate in the ward or whatever it may be of a free choice in the exercise of their vote. They ought to be able to exercise a choice even though they are in a minority


in the ward, and may permanently be in a minority.
I go half way with the hon. Member, therefore, and I see no reason why we should not have in local elections, just as we do in parliamentary elections, one free delivery of election literature for each candidate.
The proposal that the cost of printing also should be covered is dangerous in one sense, because there is no limitation upon it. A lot of people might go in for expensively produced printed literature if they thought that they would have it done free.
The hon. Member is on good ground on the question of distribution. It could well be done as we do it in parliamentary elections. It could be of special value for the top-tier authorities and the district authorities, though one might not carry it right down to the parish council level. For all the main authorities, there is a strong case for a free distribution of one item of election literature for each candidate, and I hope that the Government will think about it.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The Common Council of the City of London is not included in this Clause. In every other Clause where there is some benefit, the Common Council is included, but here it is excluded. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why it should not be covered by the rules to be made by the Secretary of State.
The City of London has its own form of elections. It gives no notice. There is a wardmote. If by chance it cannot be rigged, there is an election as soon as possible. People cannot become candidates very easily. One has to be a freeman and suffer a thousand and one other requirements to qualify.
I support the Amendment, but I assume that it would not apply to the Common Council. Was there an error here in Clause 44, and ought not the Common Council to be subject to the rules made by the Secretary of State? If the Amendment is accepted, would it apply to the City of London?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I should have expected the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) to put down an Amendment if he thought that

there was an error in the Clause. With respect, he is not on quite the same point as that raised by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), but, if I can obtain the answer to his question before I sit down, I shall gladly give it.
The question of free postage of election addresses at local government elections was raised in Committee, and there was a discussion at the same time on the use of official poll cards for local elections. It was then said that these were matters which could properly be discussed in connection with the local elections rules by the Conference on Local Government Electoral Law.
Should it be decided that what the hon. Member asks for in his Amendment is appropriate, there would be no need for legislation as such. It could be done by rule. But the Government's view is that, before any such decision were taken, one would have to have full consultation with the various local government bodies concerned. I understand that the Conference on Local Government Electoral Law has been looking into the issue of poll cards and free postage
As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North himself realises, the Amendment goes far wider than the practice in parliamentary elections. The cost of his proposal for free postage, which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C.Mitchell) supports—this is the best estimate we can make—would be about £1 million a year on the rates. For printing, taking the simplest sort of calculation one can, the cost is estimated as likely to be another £4 million a year on the rates. Thus, we are speaking here of a potential additional cost on the rates of £5 million a year. Obviously, in face of figures of that sort, it is important to consult the local government bodies concerned.
I remind the House that in General Elections, apart from the provision of free postage, there is the requirement of a deposit from each candidate. This is a disincentive to many peripheral candidates—if one may use that term—coming forward to stand. There is at present no deposit required in local government elections. Free postage and free printing might well encourage a great many fringe candidates to come forward, to even further additional cost on the rates, without any sanction such as we have in parliamentary elections.
I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said, supported by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen. I think that we must await the view of the Conference on Local Government Electoral Law on this and the question of poll cards.
My reply to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury is that this part of the Bill does not seek to deal with elections for the Common Council. They have their own legislation.

Mr. Pardoe: I recognise that there would be considerable cost, but the financing of democracy will inevitably cost a good deal in the long run. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and those who think like him that dictators spend hundreds of millions of pounds shoring up their systems. It is too much to ask that democrats should spend a few million shoring up theirs?
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the deposit. I do not advocate a deposit for either parliamentary or local government elections. The policy of my party is that we should replace the deposit system by a statutory requirement for a candidate to secure one signature in every 200 electors before he could stand. In the average constituency, this would call for about 200 or 250 signatures. In my view, we could do much the same in local government elections, and the point about the deposit does not count much with me, though I recognise that it may count with those who believe in the status quo.
I am grateful for the Minister's comments. Bearing in mind that there will be opportunity to review these matters in the context of the electoral rules, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 319, in page 22, line 43, leave out "separately chargeable" and insert "chargeable only".—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 307, in page 23, line 7, at end insert:
(9) A statutory instrument containing rules under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

The Clause provides that the election of local government councillors shall be in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that those rules shall be contained in a Statutory Instrument which is subject to the negative Resolution procedure of the House.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I accept that but here again I do not see any mention of the Common Council of the City. Am I to understand that the Common Council can receive all the benefits of local government but that it will not be obliged to respect the rules that apply to others? It has the same rights as any London borough, but apparently it is allowed to get away with murder. Is it not about time, since we are reforming local government, that we looked at the Corporation of the City of London and considered whether it was right to leave it in this privileged position? Will the Under-Secretary consider the point? It is quite outrageous that we are making special rules for all the other boroughs but that we are leaving the Common Council alone to do as it likes.

Mr. Carlisle: I understand that the Common Council has its own legislation for the purposes of elections to the Common Council. Therefore, it would be that legislation which would have to be amended if the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) wished to do so. He can not deal with that legislation within the Bill.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether the same situation applies in the legislation relating to the Common Council as applies in the Bill? Does a Statutory Instrument for altering that legislation have to be laid before the House and made subject to annulment?

Mr. Carlisle: The Statutory Instrument for the elections covered by Clause 44 has to be laid before the House subject to negative procedure. I cannot tell the hon. Member whether the rules about the election of the Common Council are or are not similar, but I will write and let him know.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pardoe: I beg to move Amendment No. 268, in page 23, line 7, at end insert:
(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section all local government elections shall be conducted by the proportional system of election known as the Single Transferable Vote.
It will hardly surprise the House that the Parliamentary Liberal Party should be advocating the introduction of proportional representation. We shall be accused of making special pleading. I plead guilty, of course. There is no doubt that proportional representation helps minorities. That is why it was introduced into large areas of the old Empire in order to heal wounds between minorities. Later I shall refer to a part of our existing Empire into which we shall reintroduce it very shortly. First, I must answer a point which is bound to be raised in the debate, and that is the question of why a Liberal Government did not introduce proportional representation into local government or in any other way when they had the power to do so. I can only say that I was not there at the time. It was one of the few excellent things that that Government did not do.
The arguments against proportional representation have been rehearsed on the nation repeatedly. I do not accept that there is a strong case against proportional representation either in national or local elections. Most of the arguments adduced against it at a national level do not apply at local government level. The first argument that is ranged against it at national level is that Britain requires strong government and large majorities. I challenge the view that this is a once-and-for-all truth. History has shown that Governments with small majorities are usually those that are in closest touch with the wishes of the electorate.
Second, it is argued that we do not have coalitions and that we do not like them. Whether one likes or dislikes coalitions in national Government, they are acceptable to all three parties in local government and they are commonly practised. It is only in a minority of councils that there is a total embargo on one party's chairman serving under another party's majority. I do not believe that argument is in the spirit of local government or that it is supported nationwide by any one of the three parties, Coalitions already exist in local government and that argument cannot be used.
I mentioned that proportional representation had been introduced into many parts of the old Empire. In October this year, with a little bit of luck, there will be local government elections in Northern Ireland by means of proportional representation. Some of us believe very strongly that if the system had never been taken out of Northern Ireland we should not now be losing the lives of British troops in the way that we are—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: If the hon. Member believes that, he will believe anything.

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman says that if I believe that, I will believe anything, but if that is so I have to ask why are the Government introducing it into Northern Ireland with the support of the Opposition? The answer is that they expect it to heal the divisions. The classic example of that is Switzerland where there are massive divisions within the country, not only divisions between the cantons but between the religions and the races and between people speaking different languages. It has been shown to be fundamentally necessary to introduce proportional representation in order to bridge the gap and in Switzerland the proportional method is used to compose the Cabinet and the whole Government.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member before from a seated position. He exaggerated the case for proportional representation in Northern Ireland. They had it before but there were still differences. It did not produce any cure and although there are arguments for it in Northern Ireland it is not a panacea.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe: I should be the last to suppose that the introduction of proportional representation just like that will heal the wounds in Northern Ireland quickly. Of course it will not. What I am saying is that if it had never been removed from the Northern Ireland scene it would have given a chance for those divided communities to come together, because there would have had to be cross-voting. That is one of the great advantages of the system. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is at odds with most of his Government's Northern Ireland policy, and probably with the Amendment as


well. The best arguments for introducing proportional representation into Northern Ireland local elections are the bringing of the communities together and the fact that it will be seen to be fair by the different communities. Neither the Government nor Conservative back benchers should advance the view that they will accept something just because violence argues for it. That would be very dangerous. There must be better reasons than the fact that there is trouble in Northern Ireland and that we must do something to solve the problem.
The best argument of all is the argument of fairness, that one man, one vote means exactly what it says, and that all votes must be equal in weight and in their power to elect a candidate. We go to considerable length—we have boundary commissions, and the whole Bill is about rejigging local government boundaries—to provide geographical equality of votes, but we have never attempted to provide political equality. There has been a great deal of argument in the debates here on the Floor of the House and in Committee about the remoteness which will be introduced into local government by the Bill as a result of the large areas created. But for as long as anyone can remember under our system of elections very often as many as half, and sometimes more than half, the electors in a ward or local government area have felt politicallly remote from their local council representative.
There are other arguments. The first is about one-party domination of a council in perpetuity. Earlier today I referred to two county councils, Durham and Surrey. Durham is dominated by Labour, and I doubt whether even Labour hon. Members would defend the quality of local government which has resulted there from one-party domination. It is never a good thing to exist unchallenged.

Mr. Leadbitter: May I, as a Member who was born in Durham, who lived in Durham, was elected in Durham and who did local government work in Durham for many years, say that Durham is a fine example to the rest of the country.

Mr. Pardoe: I wonder how many villages Durham County Council has been trying to shut down. I am sorry

to say, being associated with the National Association of Schoolmasters, that I can think of only one local education authority that is more monstrous in its attitude to teachers as an employer, and that is the Surrey County Council.

Mr. Leadbitter: As a teacher who was employed by the Durham Education Authority and who has taught in other authorities' areas, I can tell the hon. Gentleman from personal experience that I found Durham Education Authority an excellent employer.

Mr. Pardoe: That is probably because the hon. Gentleman is a member of another union. I am only stating my own opinion, which I regard as one accepted by many people in Durham and those with any contact with the county council [Interruption.] I am not suggesting, and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) must not put words into my mouth, that there is bribery and corruption in the Durham County Council. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am suggesting that, it is not true.

Mr. George Thomas: Such a thought never entered my mind. The hon. Gentleman has a good nose for trouble in any part of the country and is very quick to smear people, councillors or Members on either side of the House. But does he think he is advancing the cause of education and good relationships between teachers and the authority in Durham, or is he advancing the views of the NAS?

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman should declare his interest.

Mr. Pardoe: I did declare my interest. What is more, the Parliamentary Liberal Party not only declares its interest in the House when it is necessary to do so, but maintains a register in the Liberal Whips Office of all our interests. Any hon. Member can there see exactly where I get my extra-parliamentary income from. They will find that the National Association of Schoolmasters is listed there, as hon. Members have been told often enough in the past.
Whether or not we have different views about Durham County Council—and it appears that there are those who think that Durham County Council is the


greatest example of local democracy in the world—surely it is true that one-party domination of any council in perpetuity is not a good thing for democracy or for local government? Nor do I think it would be a good thing if the country had one-party Government by any party. The trouble is that many local councils get into the position of being dominated in perpetuity by virtually one party.
Of course, we have idiocies happening. We all know of local councillors who have done marvellous work locally, who are well respected and have served their communities, who have worked very hard, but who suddenly, because of the swing of public opinion at national level, are thrown on the scrap heap. It is nothing to do with what they have done, or their qualities as local representatives. The introduction of proportional representation into local government would place a substantial emphasis on the quality of the individual councillor as opposed to his party allegiance.
Often a small total majority or a small swing can result in all the councillors in one year being elected from one party. In Finchley in the early 1960s, when I was a parliamentary candidate there, there were two councils, the Borough Council of Finchley and the Urban District Council of Friern Barnet. In 1963, the Liberal Party achieved 51 per cent. of the vote and won all the wards. That is a situation which we should do our best to overcome although in that instance it worked to the Liberals' benefit.
It is not always the introduction of a third party which causes disruption. In Plymouth, for example, where Labour and Conservative often switch about on fairly level pegging and Liberals do not usually force many three-way decisions, in virtually a two-party situation the number of councillors elected in a year bears little relationship to the total votes cast.
I am convinced that there is proof around the world that proportional representation leads to a higher turnout. It may seem odd to say that, since I represent a constituency which in the last two General Elections has achieved the highest turnout of any constituency in the country. It was slightly lower last year at 85 per cent., but in 1966 it was 87½ per cent., which means we carried dead people to the poll.
A high turnout is a symbol of good and active democracy. The problem in local government is to achieve a high turnout. One does so only when the voters believe that their vote counts for something and that it can change things. Of course, most voters are never in that position. They live in wards which are either Labour or Conservative-controlled.
Proportional representation would be a good thing to introduce into the national scene but, even more important, we should think of introducing it into local government. There are many right hon. and hon. Members who can only be called—I am myself one—what A. P. Herbert once termed "non-members". In other words, we are sent here by a minority of our constituents. Every time we look at a group of constituents we have the uncomfortable feeling that more than half of them voted against us. That is true of more than one-third of hon. Members. In the 1964 General Election it was true of more than half of us. That is a situation we should not allow to come about on a national level and certainly not at local government level. I do not know why the Government are prepared to grant proportional representation in one part of the United Kingdom without at the same time introducing it throughout local government.

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall be brief but my brevity will depend entirely upon the patience of my Front Bench. I shall take up the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) purely on the basis that he spoiled his own case.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: Why not take him down?

Mr. Leadbitter: That will happen in a few moments. The hon. Gentleman spoiled his own case because he swept back into history and apologised because when his party was in power it did not produce what it now wants. Now, when he and his hon. Friends can be housed in a telephone kiosk, he wants us to help him out.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman is simple. When he tries to argue a case, he should stick to its merits. He must not offend the House by making imputations against local authorities purely because, over a period of years, some have been dominated by one party or the


other. In the case of one area he mentioned, the Conservatives were in power; in the case of another, the Labour Party was in power. I gather that there may be situations where there is a possibility of the Liberals having some influence, but I do not know where. The fact is that no Conservative or Labour Member will put up with a Liberal who says that because the Liberals have a register in their little office the rest of us have an attitude towards political corruption which is questionable purely because of the electoral system. He should withdraw his imputation. He has spoiled what could have been a good speech because he has made a nasty imputation.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Mistakes are made from time to time, and the only place where Liberal councillors have been elected recently is Hackney. The first thing Liberals do when they get into the council chamber is to cross the floor and become Conservatives. That is why we never have Liberal councillors.

Mr. Leadbitter: I was prepared to listen to a first-class case which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North could have made about proportional representation. The House is anxious to listen to such a case because those of us who sat in Committee for many weeks tried to produce some useful suggestions in a Bill which to say the least is a rotten potato. We have sought improvements both in Committee and on Report.
The hon. Gentleman spoiled his own case. I and, I am sure, the whole House regrets it. I resent any imputation that hon. Members either in the Conservative Party or in the Labour Party are corrupt in a certain way because the Liberals have a little register in their office which salves their consciences. This House had better watch such imputations because too many people are anxious to nail hon. Members wherever they are and to nail councillors wherever they are—provided they are not in the Liberal Party.

Mr. Pardoe: In an article in this week's New Statesman by Professor John Vaizey, who is a member of the Labour Party, the hon. Gentleman will read a statement to the effect that the public generally believe that local government

is corrupt. Professor Vaizey asks who can say that it is not. I do not agree that it is corrupt, but who can say that it is not?

Mr. Leadbitter: That kind of suggestion from a paper which has such a small readership and is of little significance should not be followed up. The New Statesman has no credibility to me. It is not a publication I take much notice of. Nor does anyone else. We in this House are dealing with the problem of how best to get the right kind of councillors under this Bill. Unless the Labour Party can come up with ideas which are better than those contained in the Bill, both sides of the House had better support the present system of elections, because the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not the right one to follow.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I hope that I shall not be out of order in assuring the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on this occasion and others, that my hon. Friend is not stating that merely because the Liberal Party has a register there is some morality attached to us and by implication some immorality attached to everyone else. We merely point out that such a register would give the protection to all hon. Members to which they are entitled. It is a suggestion which is receiving favourable consideration and it would be for the better health of politics generally.
I do not think that it helps greatly to go back into history. However, at the time my father sat as a Conservative—he was eventually defeated by a Liberal, much to my regret, although being magnanimous I have forgiven the Liberals—experimental proportional representation for 100 constituencies was introduced in a Bill in 1918 which was narrowly defeated. In 1923, there was another attempt, this time to provide for the alternative vote. The Bill passed through this House but was thrown out by the other place.

Mr. Leadbitter: The integrity of a Member of Parliament does not depend on a register but upon his own personal conduct and standing.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Thorpe: I will not be drawn further, save to say that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. But I also wish to see Members of Parliament afforded every form of protection against unfair attack, and it seems to me that this is one way in which this might be brought about.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept that just as there can be corruption on the part of Members of Parliament working for some firm and thereby getting a pecuniary advantage, there can equally be corruption on the part of hon. and right hon. Members giving legal advice to firms and getting similar pecuniary advantage. Therefore, a register is not sufficient. I should like to know precisely what money is drawn in individual cases by, say, the barristers, the lawyers, the journalists, and others.

Mr. Thorpe: I promised not to trespass further in this direction, but I must say that I would have no objection at all to that. Indeed it has been suggested that tax returns might be included, but in my view that inspection should be limited to those who might have a right to inspect. Professional fees should obviously be included. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us there.
The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked a very proper question about PR. It operated in Northern Ireland, in effect, for two local elections, and for one election for Stormont before the Unionists abolished it. The reason given for the abolition was contained in a perhaps rather unguarded remark by Lord Craigavon, who said that unless the system was changed it could well happen that at the next election, "There would be more of them returned than there would be of us." That was at least an honest disclosure.
But what is most significant is that under that system one had cross-voting. For instance, the Shankill Road area, which is predominantly Protestant and was a three-member local government seat, returned two Protestants to one Catholic. Likewise, the Falls Road area, which was and is predominantly Catholic, returned two Catholics to one Protestant. The reason was that in each of those areas

there was a sizeable Protestant or Catholic minority, and it was therefore not surprising that with a system which guaranteed that minorities were represented in proportion to their strength they were able to secure such election.
It also happened that a moderate Unionist, having cast his first preference for a moderate Unionist candidate, would much rather cast his second preference for a moderate Catholic than for an extremist Unionist. The great problem in Northern Ireland—and it is one reason why the Government have reconsidered this system—is that at the moment we have single-member constituencies, so that it is only the extremists who get nomination. The choice is then between an extremist Unionist or an extremist Nationalist, and anyone who stands for moderation is swept away.
I do not think that my hon. Friend overstated the case when he said that had PR been kept on it would have helped to encourage cross-voting between the communities. That is what has happened in the Republic where PR, which Lloyd George introduced in 1920, has never been abolished. I admit at once that the Protestant minority there is very much smaller than is the Catholic majority in the North, but the fact remains that a man's religious persuasion never determines his political affiliation. There has not been the same polarisation. I suggest that the system of PR guarantees minorities no more or no less representation than is proportionate to their strength. It seems to be the essence of democracy not only that majorities shall prevail, but that minorities have rights.
Secondly, it encourages much more cross-voting. It would be out of order to discuss parliamentary elections, but it has been suggested that there should be a General Election on the Common Market. If candidates were allowed to campaign on the Common Market, nationally or locally, as they genuinely believed, not only would there be many candidates who would differ from the official leadership of their party, and I refer to all three principal parties, but a voter would be in the position of having to vote on this great Common Market issue for a candidate to whose views he was diametrically opposed, although he was voting for the party whose views he supported, or to vote for the cause, which would mean


voting for the candidate of another political persuasion.
But if he had a multi-member vote in a three-member constituency, he could express his first, second and third preferences, no doubt casting his first preference for the candidate with whose views he was in agreement, only grudgingly giving a preference to the candidate with whose party's views he agreed, and even voting for a moderate or independent candidate from another party.

Mr. Denis Howell: What has this to do with the Amendment?

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) asks what this has to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Howell: No, it was me. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in what I was observing to my right hon. Friend, let me say that it had nothing to do with that. I was commenting that as president of my trade union, APEX, I was glad that we had got rid of the very system that the right hon. Gentleman is now advocating. We got rid of it because with the proportional transferable vote system it took 86 votes to elect the union delegation to the Labour Party and the TUC.

Mr. Thorpe: I confess that although I am now interested, I was more interested in the quantity of the conversation that was going on than its quality. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has overthrown the system used by the NUR and the NUM and many other first-class unions which have always used it and which have found it to provide great safeguards for minorities.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Mr. Biggs-Davison rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Before the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) intervenes, I should like to draw attention to the extent to which the debate has ranged beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I wish only to make it clear that I am not opposed to experimenting again with proportional representation in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. Indeed, such a proposal was put forward in Mr. Brian

Falkner's Green Paper. I merely wish to urge that exaggerated claims should not be made for proportional representation.

Mr. Thorpe: I entirely agree, but nor should exaggerated opposition be shown to it. It has not yet been shown to it in the debate, and that is very satisfactory.
There are three vital reasons why PR should be used in local government. The first is that we are to have much larger units than ever before and there will therefore be an even greater tendency for there to be remoteness between the elected councillor and the electorate. I therefore want the closest possible relationship between them, and I believe that a three-member constituency of this sort is the way in which that can be achieved.
Secondly, I believe it is important that the man should not merely get elected because he happens to belong to a convenient political persuasion in a particular area. I say this coming from a borough where the Liberal Party controls the council. It is equally applicable in all cases. I should like to feel that the personal qualities of a candidate were of at least some advantage to him and of greater advantage than at present. We have only to see as my hon. Friend says, some of the first-class councillors who have been 15 or 20 years on the council and who have been thrown off merely because of a slight swing. We had a case in one London borough the other day where a very small swing caused the defeat of the whole council. If we look at the votes cast that situation did not express the wishes of the electors in that area.
The third thing is that I believe we should not only attach importance to the quality of the individual and try to get a greater proximity between the feelings of the electors and those whom they return, but also the more in local government that we can encourage cross-voting so that people feel that on their second or third preference they will sometimes vote for a cause and not necessarily always a nominee of the party, the more we shall encourage some very good people to go into local government.
I look forward to the experiment with PR which is being introduced in Northern Ireland. It was disastrous that it was ever abolished. I believe there would


have been much less sectarian bitterness had that not happened. I very much hope that we will consider extending it to local government in this country because there will be great benefits all round.

Mr. George Thomas: I wish to refer to the speeches of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). At least we can pay this tribute to the right hon. Gentleman: he dealt with the merits of the case. It was kind of him to explain what his hon. Friend meant by his speech. One of the main arguments advanced by his hon. Friend was that our current system leads to one-party domination. Although he withdrew from any suggestion of bribery and corruption he suggested that there is something unpleasant about one party holding the confidence of the electorate for a long period of time. There is no local authority which remains in power without keeping the confidence of the people who put it there in the first place.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North—an area not exactly regarded as having the most progressive authority in the land, certainly not in educational matters—referred to Durham in offensive language. I do not wish to do him an injustice but I think he suggested that it was the worst authority in the world. The hon. Gentleman's grievance in the first place is that he cannot get many of his colleagues elected to that authority. His sense of grievance came out clearly. The Durham County Council was one of the first authorities in the country to abolish school fees for secondary education. It has taken a progressive line with student grants and in Durham the student going to a college stands a far better chance of being supported by a grant than the young people from the constituency of the hon. Member. He had better keep his recriminations for those narrow people in the area from which he comes who refuse to give generous grants to their young people.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North is earning for himself in this House and in the country the reputation of a man who goes round looking for something to condemn. He is somebody who is very eager to talk in generalities about corruption in terms of other people. I would say to the hon. Gentleman "Methinks, he doth protest too much." It makes me wonder.

9 0 p.m.

I leave the hon. Gentleman, to turn to the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Devon, North who advanced three main arguments which the House must take seriously. I do not for a moment believe that we should consider the question of proportional representation in local government in this country on the basis of the special circumstances which so sadly prevail in Northern Ireland. We must look at the other three main arguments adopted by the Leader of the Liberal Party.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that three-member constituencies would bring local councils closer to the people No doubt for reasons of time, he did not explain how they would be closer than the single member wards because they might each come from the same part of the bigger constituency. This is quite possible and therefore I believe the argument does not hold water.

By criticising the quality of candidates the right hon. Gentleman did not do his case great credit, because the quality of candidates for both local and national Government is not unimportant even in strong areas. Whether he be Conservative, Liberal or Labour, if the man is not respected this will be reflected in the total vote cast. I do not believe we should under-estimate the fact that if a man is held in high regard he will receive a bigger vote. It is the common sense of the British people and their instinct for decency in public life which ensures that candidates who are unfit for public life are weeded out.

The third matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman was that of cross-voting which gives a second or third choice for the electors and which, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, would create an interest in local government. On the contrary, I believe that it will create greater confusion and difficulty. It would multiply splinter groups and would add to the problems of local government. I was not at all persuaded by the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and I was very much offended by the bad taste of the insinuations left in the air of this Chamber by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.

Mr. Carlisle: I will stick to the subject of proportional representation rather than become involved in any little local


argument about the standard of Durham Council.
I agree very much with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) in his criticisms of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in support of proportional representation. The effect of these Amendments would be to provide that the local elections rules should prescribe the introduction of the single transferable vote for all local elections, whether they be county, district, parish or community elections. Just as I believe the majority in this House would oppose the idea of proportional representation in parliamentary government, I believe that equally the majority of hon. Members are opposed to the idea of proportional representation in local government.
Although I have listened with interest to the general argument advanced by the Leader of the Liberal Party for proportional representation, I really cannot believe that it would be right to bring it in for local government in this way without its being discussed in the framework of parliamentary government as well. Frankly, in all the consultations which have taken place about local government reform with all the various bodies concerned there has been no widespread demand or support for the idea of proportional representation in local government elections. I am sure that in this Bill and this major change which we are making in local government there is enough change for people to understand without adding to it a completely different form or type of voting in local government when it does not apply to parliamentary elections.

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that that particular system worked for university seats in this House right up to the time when the university seats were abolished, so that there is a precedent for having two different electoral system working. What would be his reaction—I accept that he would be stating it off the cuff—to allowing a certain degree of option in local conditions so that the local council should determine under what electoral system it will operate for the next 5 to 10 years?

Mr. Carlisle: I got into enough trouble suggesting three-member seats and one-member seats—although that is a wholly different matter—as a system which might operate to suit local conditions most effectively, but that is entirely different from giving an option on the method by which people should be elected. I think it would add confusion to have completely different types and method of election in different parts of the country.
May I now take up the point about size? Surely the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West must be right. Most of the argument has been about the need to retain a degree of connection between the ward and the member. Nobody has really challenged the idea of the one-member ward—for example, for county councils. Many have argued that perhaps the total number of councillors should be increased to make the ward still smaller, yet the effect of proportional representation, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, would magnify by something like threefold the size of the individual electorate for a county council. I really do not believe that it would advance the interest of the public in local government to get a situation where, I believe, the individual councillor would be more remote from those he represents. That, I believe, would be the effect of proportional representation. I do not believe it would have the advantages which the right hon. Gentleman sets out for it, and I certainly do not think it would be right to do this for local government in isolation in the way the Amendment proposes.

Mr. Thorpe: May I reply—I shall be 30 seconds—and say, first of all, that the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) raised, was a perfectly valid one—how is the Member's contact with his electorate increased? Very often we find, on looking at the complexion of a council, a minority who are not represented; it may be as much as 45 per cent. of the electorate who have no councillor at all. Under our winner-takes-all system it is possible for one party to sweep the entire board and for two or sometimes even three opposition parties to have no representation whatever. The position about proportional representation is that it gives every minority a


chance to be represented in proportion to the number of votes cast for it.
Take, for example, the Labour Party in Sussex, where it is in a minority, but there are probably enough Labour votes, if aggregated in a three-member constituency, to get one Labour Member elected. It may even be that in Durham there are enough Conservative votes if aggregated to ensure that the minority has one seat. The tragedy of our present system is that we have inflated majorities. Leaving aside the Liberal Party, the major Opposition party is often totally unrepresented or at any rate grossly under-represented in proportion to its strength.
To have a system whereby Joe Bloggs, who happens to belong to the minority party, is for the first time elected to the council, would increase the feeling of people that they were being properly represented. At the moment that is not so. Finally—

Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order. We seem to have moved to the position where speakers assume that they have a right to speak twice. I ask that the normal convention of the House should be observed whereby the leave of the House is asked before either hon. or right hon. Gentlemen seek to address the House twice.

Mr. Pardoe: Further to that point of order. After moving the first Liberal Amendment this afternoon, I rose at the end of the debate after the Government had replied to ask Mr. Deputy Speaker on a point of order whether I had a right of reply. He assured me that I had. When I began by saying,
By leave of the House",
he said that I had no need to say that

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has properly pointed out, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) who rose to speak a second time is not the mover of the Amendment. The Chair allowed that to pass on the assumption that he was taking on the hon. Gentleman's task in replying to the Amendment. That I still suppose to be the case.

Mr. Thorpe: That is indeed the case. I will complete what I want to say by making one final point—

Mr. George Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman said he would speak for only 30 seconds.

Mr. Thorpe: My speech has been somewhat elongated but not through my intervention.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that the case for changing our electoral processes should not rest upon the conditions in Northern Ireland. Of course I accept that. All I am saying is that in Northern Ireland we can see more starkly the disadvantages of polarisation, the disadvantages of unrepresented minorities. I hope we shall never see such a situation in this country although I think for historical reasons it is unlikely to occur. It is because I want to see minorities represented—by that I mean any party which is not the majority party in any particular council—because I want to see cross-voting and because I want the electorate to have a variety of choice that I believe this reform is overdue.
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Orders of the Day — Clause 45

ORDINARY DAY OF ELECTION

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 232, in page 23, line 10, leave out from 'be' to end of line 12 and insert:
'the first Thursday in May or such other day as may be fixed by the Secretary of State by order made not later than 1st February in the year preceding the first year in which the order is to take effect'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House to take also Government Amendments Nos. 425 and 430.

Mr. Carlisle: The purpose of Amendment No. 232, which was earlier welcomed by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), is to fix the annual date for elections on the first Thursday in May, or such other day as may be fixed by order of the Home Secretary made not later than 1st February in the year preceding the first year in which the order is to take effect. There was a request that the Bill should contain a local government election day, and


the Amendment fixes it as the first Thursday in May.
Clause 46(1), which deals with occasions when a poll has been abandoned or countermanded, does not state the period in which another election must be held. Amendment No. 425 requires such an election to be held within 42 day and Amendment No. 430 provides that Sundays and public holidays shall be excluded from the computation of that period of 42 days.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 46

OMISSION TO HOLD ELECTION OR ELECTION VOID

Amendments made: No. 425, in page 23, line 23, after 'day', insert:
'within the period of forty-two days beginning with the day fixed for the poll at the first mentioned election'.

No. 430, in page 23, line 24, at end insert:
(2) In computing the period of forty-two days referred to in subsection (1) above, a Sunday, day of the Christmas break, of the Easter break or of a bank holiday break or day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning shall be disregarded.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 916, in page 24, line 13, at end insert—
(7) In the case of a common parish council under which are grouped, by virtue of section 12(5) above, parishes situated in different districts, references in subsections (4) to (6) above to the district council shall be construed as references to the council of the district in which there is the greater number of local government electors for the parishes in the group.
The Clause deals with omissions to hold an election where an election is void, and declares that the district council may take action where a difficulty relates to a parish or community council. There may be instances when parishes already grouped under a common parish council find themselves divided between two new districts, and in such a case the group and the common parish council will continue in existence.
The purpose of the Amendment is simply to secure that, if election difficulties arise in such a parish council, the

district council to take action shall be the district which contains the greatest number of local government electors for the parishes in the group.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION OF ELECTION LAW

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 968, in page 229, line 10, leave out from 'proxy)' to end of line 14 and insert:
'an address shall not be treated as in the same area as a qualifying address unless—
(a) both addresses are in the same electoral division of Greater London, or
(b) both addresses are in the same electoral division of a county in England and, if either address is in a parish, both are in the same parish, or
(c) both addresses are in the same electoral division of a county in Wales and in the same community'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 727 and 728.

Mr. Carlisle: These Amendments, which concern postal voting at parliamentary elections, are designed to translate as nearly as possible into the new local government terms the existing entitlement to a postal vote on moving house at a parliamentary election. The effect of the Amendments will be to allow a postal vote if a person moves out of one county electoral division to another. Such a person will also be entitled to a postal vote if he moves within the same division either from one parish to another or into or out of a particular parish.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 50

DUTY AND POWER TO REVIEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS IN ENGLAND

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 573, in page 27, line 15, at end insert:
(6) In any case where the Secretary of State has made an order under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1965 designating any land as, or as an extension of, a new town and the area of the new town as so designated or so extended is not wholly comprised within one


district, he shall, as soon as practicable after the order has become operative, send to the English Commission a notice stating that the order is in operation and specifying the districts within which that area is situated, and on receipt of such a notice it shall be the duty of the Commission, subject to section 51(5) below, to review the areas of those districts for the purpose of considering whether or not to make such proposals in relation to them as are authorised by section 49 above and what proposals, if any, to make: and the Commission shall, if they think fit, formulate such proposals accordingly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 574.

Mr. Speed: These parallel Amendments operating for England and Wales respectively ensure that the local government boundary implications—

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I once again make the request that we be told where these Amendments appear on the Amendment paper. Where is Amendment No. 574? I could not find the last one. Amendments are going through without hon. Members knowing where they are.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the hon. Member is referring to Amendment No. 728

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: And now to Amendment No. 574.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 573 is at the bottom of page 11173 of Part 1 of the Amendment Paper. Perhaps the Minister of State will help us as to the whereabouts of Amendment No. 574.

Mr. Speed: It is in Clause 57.

Mr. Maddan: It is on page 11176 of the Paper.

Mr. Speed: I will start again. These are parallel Amendments operating for England and Wales respectively to ensure that the local government boundary implications of new town designations or extensions are considered promptly. The Amendments have been tabled in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee during the debate on Amendments to achieve the same end which were achieved by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis).
In detail, the making of an order under Section 1 of the New Towns Act, 1965, is the final stage in the procedure after

consultations. At that stage the Secretary of State either for the Environment or for Wales, as the case may be, looks to see whether the new town or, in the case of an extension, the whole extended new town lies in more than one district. If so, he must notify the Local Government Boundary Commission for England or Wales, as the case may be. The commission must then review the areas of the districts concerned in accordance with the general procedure for reviews and decide whether or not to make proposals. If the Secretary of State for the Environment considers it premature to carry out the review at this stage, if the review should be deferred so that he can have regard to other planning issues to be decided shortly, he will still notify the commission, under subsection (5) of Clause 51, to issue deferment directions. This does not apply to Wales, where the Secretary of State for Wales does not have such power.

Mr. Terry Davis: I welcome this Government Amendment. It meets the points I made in a similar Amendment in Committee. I am grateful that the Government have had second thoughts.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 50

DUTY AND POWER TO REVIEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS IN ENGLAND

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, Amendment No. 549, in page 27, line 38, after 'functions', insert:
'under this Part of this Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendment No. 551.

Mr. Speed: The objects of these Amendments are much the same as that of the previous two Amendments. These parallel Amendments, operating again for England and Wales respectively, qualify and limit the escape provision under which a district can avoid considering a request by an interested parish or community council, or a parish or community meeting, for a review of parish or community boundaries or areas.
The Amendments have been tabled in fulfilment of an undertaking given in


Committee as a result of a point raised by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). I can go into details, but the main point was that the Clause as originally drafted gave a very wide discretion to councils whether to take action in such cases. My right hon. Friend the Minister replied that that intention was that the phrase within the Clause should relate to their functions under Part IV and he promised Amendments to make that clear.
The purpose of the escape provision which is included in the subsection is to protect the district against claimant parishes or communities which might be making such sectional claims where the districts are working their way through the parish-community pattern. If a district abused the amended provision by using it as an excuse to fall back on the job, the parish-community could ask the Secretary of State, either direct or through the commission, to use his power of direction, which is contained in Clause 51(2) for England and Clause 58(2) for Wales. The Amendments meet the point properly pointed out in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 52

SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 462, in page 29, line 20, leave out "1st April 1974, and thereafter" and insert:
the completion of the initial review of the electoral arrangements for counties under Schedule 9 below and thereafter, so far as is reasonably practicable".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 463 to 469, inclusive.

Mr. Carlisle: The effect of these Amendments together would be to leave the responsibility for the timing of the Local Government Boundary Commission reviews of electoral arrangements to the commission after it has conducted its initial review under Schedules 9 and 10.
This matter was raised in Committee when, it was felt wrong that the commis-

sion should in any way be subject to ministerial control. These Amendments would give the commission full discretion as to the timing of the reviews but the commission will still be required to review the electoral arrangements at intervals of 10 to 15 years and to consider whether to recommend changes. But it will be independent of ministerial control in the timing of these reviews. This meets the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) in Committee.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am much obliged. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. We are glad that he has met the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 463, in page 29, line 30, leave out subsection (3).

No. 464, in page 29, line 42, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 53

COMMISSION'S REPORTS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION

Mr. Maddan: I beg to move Amendment No. 733, in page 31, line 30, at end add:
and any statutory instrument containing an order under this section which gives effect to proposals under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 49 above shall not have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".
In the hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment, I shall be brief. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is empowered to do many things, mostly connected with the revision of areas and the like, but it is empowered also to recommend the conversion of a metropolitan county to an ordinary county or an ordinary county to metropolitan county. As a consequence of either of the latter changes, district status changes as well. This means that important services such as education and social welfare of one kind and another may suddenly be transferred from one authority to another.
In Committee my right hon. Friend said that if we could find a precedent for these matters being subject to the affirmative procedure as opposed to the


negative procedure when an order was made, he would consider it. We have found a precedent. It is in the Local Government Act, 1958, Section 40(1) and (2). These subsections provide for the affirmative Resolution procedure on matters of lesser moment than those which we are considering now. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I support the Amendment. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) makes a valid point when he reminds us that the matters which we are here considering are, or could be, of great importance and it is right that there should be a guaranteed opportunity for discussion. The affirmative Resolution procedure would give that opportunity but the negative Resolution procedure does not.
At every possible point, it should be stressed that we are now reaching a state of affairs in the House at which, even though there may be a strong desire for debate on an order to which attention has been called, it may well be impossible for the matter to be raised because of the amount of Government and other business coming before the House. In the circumstances, it is vital that the rights of the House should be protected. The Amendment affords one of the ways in which that can be done.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry to have to say that I cannot satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) by accepting his Amendment. The point made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) is valid if one considers the procedure of the House, but we ought not to legislate on the basis that there have been occasions when the House has not found time for a Prayer against an order. I understand that this matter is being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure and that there are proposals which may solve the problem. But I am sure that we ought not to legislate on that basis.
We ought to consider whether the matters covered by an order are such that the House should be obliged to debate them, that is to say, that the Government should bring them before the House on an affirmative Resolution, or whether they are matters which should be brought before the House, if a Member so desires,

on a Prayer but with which the House need not otherwise be concerned.
I think that the right division here turns on whether the orders create new law without any prior consideration by those affected by it. In such a case, I think it would be right to bring them before the House on an affirmative Resolution. In this case, however, the Boundary Commission may make a great number of recommendations upon which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is empowered to proceed by order. In all the cases covered by Clause 49, there is the appropriate parliamentary procedure on such an order—that is, the negative procedure—and any Member is entitled to bring the matter before the House on a Prayer.
I say that the negative Resolution procedure is right in this case because the very fact that the order arises from a recommendation of the Boundary Commission means that those concerned, both the local authorities and their citizens, will have had an opportunity to put their case before the Boundary Commission. There is, therefore, a process before the order ever reaches the House under which those concerned will be able to make their case. In those circumstances I do not think the House ought to be obliged to debate such orders. It would be right for any Member concerned to—

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is still within the competence of hon. Members whether they exercise their right fully or not. The length of debate or the extent to which they take advantage of it is a matter entirely for the House.

Mr. Page: I appreciate that. Perhaps I should have said that it should not be an obligation on the Government to bring the orders before the House. I say that because there has been debate outside the House on the subject before it ever reaches the stage of an order.
My hon. Friend mentioned a precedent. Indeed, he produced a precedent under the previous Statute. But it was not truly a precedent for what he is arguing now. The previous local government legislation provided for a great number of varied types of orders to come before the House on affirmative Resolution, but I do not think the matter had then been considered fully—that is to


say, the point as to whether there was an investigation before the orders were made and an opportunity for those concerned with them to make their case at that stage.

Mr. Maddan: The very things dealt with in Section 40 of the Local Government Act, 1958, are changes that arise or would have arisen from the Local Government Commission's recommendations. So all this would have been happening and the things listed in subsections (1) and (2) are much less important than this change in status from county to metropolitan county, or vice versa.

Mr. Page: I entirely agree that that is so but I do not agree that there is any principle behind the 1958 legislation. One searches for a principle behind the division between an order subject to affirmative procedure and an order subject to the negative procedure. The position that I am trying to put to the House is that when one has had an investigation prior to an order being made, it is not producing new law un-debated by those concerned with it. In that case I would say that an order requiring the affirmative procedure would be the proper basis.
It is true that my hon. Friend has produced a precedent, as I challenged him to do in Committee. It is partially a precedent in his support but it goes very much wider. What he seeks to do in this case is to pick one out of a dozen instances in Clause 49 and say that this procedure should apply to that. He might have a logical case, although I would not have agreed with it, if he had said that all these cases under Clause 49 ought to have come before the House

on the affirmative procedure. But when he picks one out, I do not think he has a logical argument.

Mr. Maddan: When my right hon. Friend was challenged in Committee to produce a precedent he said that he would think about it again. In a previous speech, reported at c. 1315 of the Official Report, he said:
the change, which is a very important change if it has to take place between metropolitan and non-metropolian status or the other way round‖".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8th February, 1972; c. 1315.]
It is therefore very important. It is rather different from the other things in Section 49 of the Act dealing with areas and the like.
Suppose, for instance, that Southampton and Portsmouth are to become a metropolitan county. It means that education and the social services will suddenly be dealt with by the metropolitan districts, not by the county. It might be desired or it might not, but it is certainly much more important and quite different from any of the other things listed in the Clause. They are the sort of things that a local government commission would be expected to deal with. The matter I raise is not only more important but it is the sort of thing in which by definition a Local Government Boundary Commission will have very little experience. It is a different matter for Parliament to deal with. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider what he has said on the merits of the case and I, for once, shall not be satisfied unless he does.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 166.

Division No. 295]
AYES
[9.36 p.m.


Albu, Auston
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Doig, Peter


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dormand, J. D.


Allen, Scholefield
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Edelman, Maurice


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Evans, Fred


Ashton, Joe
Concannon, J. D.
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, Norman
Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeson, Reginald


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cronin, John
Garrett, W. E.


Booth, Albert
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Golding, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamling, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)




Hardy, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Harper, Joseph
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roper, John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McElhone, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Hattersley, Roy
McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Heffer, Eric S.
Maclennan, Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Horam, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marks, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Marsden, F.
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N )
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Spearing, Nigel


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Meacher, Michael
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Mikardo, Ian
Swain, Thomas


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Millan, Bruce
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Judd, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Tomney, Frank


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Halloran, Michael
Torney, Tom


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Tuck, Raphael


Kerr, Russell
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Urwin, T. W.


Kinnock, Neil
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Lambie, David
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Lamborn, Harry
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wallace, George


Latham, Arthur
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Lawson, George
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wellbeloved, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G.
Whitlock, William


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Woof, Robert


Leonard, Dick
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Lestor, Miss Joan
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. Martin Maddan and


Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. R. C. Mitchell


Lomas, Kenneth




NOES


Adley, Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maude, Angus


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B
Mawby, Ray


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Astor, John
Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Biffen, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Normanton, Tom


Boscawen, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Onslow, Cranley


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis. A. G. F.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bray, Ronald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Havers, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, John E. B.(Norfolk, S.)
Percival, Ian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clegg, Walter
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Raison, Timothy


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cooke, Robert
Hunt, John
Redmond, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Crouch, David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen Jame
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dixon, Piers
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Kershaw, Anthony
Rost, Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fell, Anthony
Knox, David
Sharples, Sir Richard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fidler, Michael
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Le Merchant, Spencer
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fortescue, Tim
Loveridge, John
Soref, Harold


Foster, Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman
McCrindle, R. A
Spence, John


Gardner, Edward
Marten, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Gibson-Watt, David
Mather, Carol
Stainton. Keith







Stanbrook, Ivor
Trew, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Winterton, Nicholas


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Waddington, David
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow.Cathcart)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Ward, Dame Irene



Tebbit, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Temple, John M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wiggin Jerry
Mr. Marcus Fox


Thomas. John Stradling (Monmouth)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 54

DIRECTIONS ABOUT REVIEWS

Amendment made: No. 465, in page 32, line 4, leave out '51 or 52' and insert 'or 51'—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 57

REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS IN WALES

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I beg to move Amendment No. 550, in page 33, line 14, at beginning insert:
'Upon the completion, in relation to their district, of the special community review under Schedule 10 below'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Government Amendment No. 555, in page 236, line 12, after '10'. insert 'and section 57(2)'.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The purpose of these Amendments is to make it clear that the duty of a district council in Wales to keep its district under review for the purpose of making recommendations to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales on the constitution, abolition or alteration of communities in its area will not arise until the completion of the Special Community Review by the Welsh Commission.
Amendment No. 550 inserts the necessary words in Clause 57(2) and Amendment No. 555 is a consequential Amendment to the reference in Schedule 10(11).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 551, in page 33, line 22, after 'functions', insert:
 'under this Part of this Act'.

No. 574, in page 33, line 40, at end insert:
(4) In any case where the Secretary of State has made an order under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1965 designating any land as, or as an extension of, a new town and the area of the new town as so designated or so extended is not wholly comprised within one district, he shall, as soon as practicable after the order has become operative, send to the Welsh Commission a notice stating that the order is in operation and specifying the districts within which that area is situated, and on receipt of such notice it shall be the duty of the Commission to review the areas of those districts for the purpose of considering whether or not to make such proposals in relation to them as are authorised by section 56 above and what proposals, if any, to make; and the Commission shall, if they think fit, formulate such proposals accordingly—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 59

SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

Amendments made:No. 466, in page 35, line 33, leave out '1st April 1974, and thereafter' and insert:
'the completion of the initial review of the electoral arrangements for counties under Schedule 10 below and thereafter, so far as is reasonably practicable'.

No. 467, in page 35, line 43, leave out subsection (3).

No. 468, in page 36, line 9, leave out subsection 5—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 60

COMMISSION'S REPORTS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move Amendment No. 905, in page 37, line 18, at end insert:
'Provided that an order giving effect to any such proposals shall not be made until after the expiry of six weeks from the day on which those proposals were submitted to him'.
This Amendment is to bring the procedure for dealing with the implementation


of the recommendation of the Welsh Boundary Commission into line with that of the English Commission. It inserts a proviso in Clause 60 similar to that inserted in the English Clause 53(2) by an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) in Standing Committee, thus implementing an undertaking which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas). The effect of the Amendment would be to give a statutory breathing space of not less than six weeks between the submission of a report by the Welsh Commission and the making of an order by the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 61

DIRECTIONS ABOUT REVIEWS

Amendment made: No. 469, in page 38, line 2, leave out '58 or 59' and insert 'or 58'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 62

PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWS

Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move Amendment No. 536, in page 38, line 14, after 'bodies', insert:
'and such organisations and persons representative of such officers and employees of any such council, authority or body'.
This is the first of a series of Amendments which, in association with hon. Members on both sides of the House, have been tabled on behalf of the National and Local Government Officers' Association. In view of some of the interchanges which took place a little earlier, I had better begin by declaring an interest in so far as I act as one of NALGOs parliamentary consultants, although I think that the terms and conditions of that consultancy would not be likely to give much concern to any of my colleagues.
If a boundary commission or district council holds a review under this part of the Bill, it is required under Clause 62 to consult any local authorities directly affected by the review and also
…such other local authorities and public bodies as appear to them to be concerned…

The provision goes even further and extends to
…such other persons as they think fit:
This makes consultation very wide indeed, and it may be that the intention of the Clause is to cover the position of officers and employees of the authorities involved, as they would certainly be directly concerned and interested.
The right hon. Gentleman has several times in our debates referred to consultations with those concerned. It is surely desirable to have an express provision in the Clause making it mandatory for the commission or the district council to consult representatives of officers and staff who are to be affected by the review. I cannot see what the objection to this can be, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) for raising this point, since it is obviously of importance. There is no doubt that associations of officers and employees have much to contribute to the discussion of the pattern of local government and certainly have interests in it which should not be overlooked when a review of boundaries is taking place.
But there are difficulties, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, in requiring the Commissions by statutory provision to consult those officers. For example, which of the many associations and which branches covering which local authorities or other bodies should be consulted? Local authorities do not have a unified staff body such as, for example, the Whitley staff side in Government Departments, so there is no association which we can mention in the statute as being one for consultation by the commission when undertaking a review. The commission would therefore have a most awkward and invidious task in deciding whom to consult.
In these circumstances, I think that it is best to leave the matter to the good sense of the associations to decide when they should make representations in any particular review, in the knowledge that such representations will always be welcomed by the commission and given very full consideration I cannot imagine any


circumstances in which the commission would refuse to hear and discuss representations made by an association on behalf of local government staff. The issue here is essentially one of what is reasonable to put into the Bill and how to put it into the Bill, and not the principle of considering the views of employees' organisations, on which I am sure we are all agreed.
Since studying the Amendment, I have considered whether the Clause would cover the sort of associations which the hon. Member has in mind. It is true that the Clause does not go further than to talk about bodies to be consulted, but perhaps we might see whether one ought to insert"organisations and persons".
I hesitate to go further than that by trying to identify the staff associations, because there are many other people whom the commission may consult and if we mentioned just employees there is always the danger that by so doing we exclude the rest. I want to be certain that we include them, so I think that I should see whether it would be better to add at least the word "organisations", as suggested in the Amendment.
If the hon. Member will be good enough to leave it with me, I will discuss it with him and with the associations concerned to see whether that covers the case.

Mr. Denis Howell: I found the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply disappointing, but he redeemed himself in the second half. The question goes a little wider than staff associations, although those are, as my hon. Friend has said, of great importance. We have here the whole question of trade unionism and the right of trade unions to be consulted. My hon. Friend would be the first to agree that just as staff representatives have interests when there are these major changes in local government so also have the trade unions, because all services can be affected.
When the Bill speaks of local authorities and public bodies affected, it is saying, ipso facto, that it is a matter of concern to employers' organisations, because local government organisations and public bodies are organisations of employers. Trade unions have similar interests, and if one may be so bold as to say so, as

they represent the people on the shop floor, people in the public service industries, they have unique opportunity to give advice. I was therefore glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that organisations as such ought to be thought about, and that he would undertake to think about them. The point might be made by a definition of public bodies, but however it is done I think that we can advise my hon. Friend to accept the Minister's undertaking, and leave the matter there for the time being.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I appreciate the Minister's understanding way of dealing with this group of Amendments. To some extent we anticipated his anxieties by not seeking in the Amendment to import specific reference to any organisation. I accept that there should be consultation with representatives of organisations and with persons, and I am happy to leave the Minister, having heard what has been said in this short debate, to see whether something can be written into the Bill later to cover the point.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9

INITIAL REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS IN ENGLAND

Amendments made: No. 940, in page 233, line 39, leave out from 'considering' to end of line 42 and insert:
'future electoral arrangements for the district and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.

No. 941, in page 234, line 1. after 'required', insert '(a)'.

No. 942, in page 234, line 3, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 1 above (whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.

No. 943, in page 234, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert:
'future electoral arrangements for the county and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.

No. 944, in page 234, line 15, after 'required' insert '(a)'.

No. 962, in page 234. line 17. at end insert:
 'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 3 above (whether as submitted to him or with modifications).'—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 10

INITIAL REVIEW IN WALES

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move Amendment No. 553, in page 235, line 17, leave out 'paragraph 28(5)' and insert:
'paragraphs 28(5), 31 and 32'.
I understand that with this Amendment we are taking Amendment No. 554.
These are drafting Amendments to ensure that the relevant parts of Schedule 12, Part V which provide for polls consequent on a community meeting are applied to any local poll that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales considers desirable during the special community review.

Amendment agreed to.

It being Ten o'clock, farther consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Local Government Bill and the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

Amendments made: No. 554, in page 235, line 19, leave out 'it applies' and insert 'they apply'.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

No. 946, in page 235, line 35, leave out paragraph 7 and insert:
'7. On receipt of a report under paragraph 6 above the Secretary of State shall either make an order giving effect to any proposals of the Welsh Commission submitted with the report (whether as submitted or with modifications) or make an order providing for the continuation of the existing arrangements

applicable to the community or communities in question'.

No. 947, in page 236, line 8, leave out from 'considering' to end of line 11 and insert:
future electoral arrangements for the district and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.

No. 555, in page 236, line 12, after 10', insert 'and section 57(2)'.

No. 948, in page 236, line 21, after 'required', insert '(a)'.

No. 949, in page 236, line 23, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 10 above (whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.

No. 950, in page 236, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert:
future electoral arrangements for the county and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.

No. 951, in page 236. line 36, after 'required', insert '(a)'.

No. 963. in page 236, line 38, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 13 above (whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 69

CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS RELATING TO PART IV

Amendments made: No. 308, in page 42, line 32, after 'lieutenant'. insert 'high'.

No. 1047, in page 42, line 37, after first 'or', insert 'amend'.

No. 939, in page 43, line 22, at end insert:
'(e) without prejudice to paragraph (c) above, the order of retirement of councillors for any such electoral area;
(f) in the case of an order relating to the system of election of district councillors, the ordinary year of election and the order of retirement of parish or community councillors for any parish or community situated in the district.'—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 74

ALTERATION OF LOCAL BOUNDARIES CONSEQUENT ON ALTERATION OF WATER COURSE

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 552, in page 48, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
The effect of this Amendment would be to discontinue the Secretary of State's power to recover his expenses on action taken to amend boundaries as a result of an alteration of watercourses. My right hon. Friend has no wish to be so ungenerous, mean, greedy, grabbing, as the law permits him to be, and so we are to abolish that right.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 79

SUPPLEMENTARY

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 756, in page 51, line 6, after 'shall', insert
'so far as is reasonably practicable'.
With this I understand that we are to take all the remaining Government Amendments to No. 767.
The purpose of these Amendments is merely that the wording of the order resulting from Schedule 11 would require those considering electoral arrangements for local government areas to comply so far as reasonably practicable with the rules of Schedule 11 and in doing so to take account of any change in the number or distribution of local government electors for an area in the next five years before proceeding to the other considerations of nearly equal electorate in each electoral area within the county, borough or district and the observance of local government boundaries. These will be the primary considerations, but in addition, although subject to those primary rules, the Commissions and other concerned will also have regard to the desirability of fixing easily identifiable boundaries, to local ties and, in counties, to district ward boundaries.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 11

RULES TO BE OBSERVED IN CONSIDERING ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 757, in page 237, line 8, leave out 'So far as is reasonably practicable' and insert
'Having regard to any change in the number or distribution of the local government electors of the country likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following the consideration'.
—[Mr. Graham Page]

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I beg to move Amendment No. 570, in page 237, line 9, at beginning insert
'subject to the need to prevent any division from being of such a large area, or from containing so many villages and hamlets, that the county councillor representing it would find it difficult to keep in touch with or to serve his or her constituents efficiently'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 772, in page 239, line 9, at end insert—
(d) the need to prevent any ward or electoral division of any district from being of such a large area, or of containing so many villages and hamlets, that the district councillor or councillors representing it would find it difficult to keep in touch with or to serve his, her or their constituents efficiently.

Mr. Hill: It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), whose name appears at the top of the Amendment, cannot be here tonight to move it for the very good reason that, although he is an admirable Member of Parliament, he is an even better husband and this is his silver wedding anniversary. I am therefore moving it at rather short notice and if my knowledge is deficient, my interest is great.
I am interested in the way the criteria as described in the Schedule and just amended by the last batch of Amendments came to be decided upon. I suffer from the disability of not having served on the Committee but as far as I can find out this was not discussed then. The source of the change, as far as I am aware, seems to have been in the consultation papers circulated to the various local authority associations and other bodies concerned, on a confidential basis initially. It is not easy for the ordinary back bencher to have access to these


papers and it has taken quite a bit of research to find the relevant document. The Library did not even receive a copy; it had to ask for it. I want to put on record the four paragraphs which seem to be the basis on which these criteria are now fixed.
I quote from the consultation paper on electoral arrangements in England and Wales issued by the Home Office and dated 31st March, 1971. Paragraph 7 states:
The Bills will prescribe the broad criteria on which each council area is to be divided in order to return an appropriate number of councillors. These will serve as a guide when the electoral areas are devised for the first elections, and when subsequent alterations are in question.
8. In counties at present, the population of each division must be approximately equal, subject to regard being had to area, to a proper representation both of the rural and of the urban population, to their distribution and pursuits, to the last census, and any consider able change since then. The phrase about proper representation has given rise to the practice of rural weighting (or over-representation of rural electors in recognition of difficulties of communication, etc.). In fact, the ratio of rural electors per councillor to urban electors per councillor varies from 2:3 to 5:6.
9. In Greater London, so far as reasonably practicable, the ratio of electors to councillors must be 'as nearly as may be' the same in every ward: but account must be taken of likely changes within the next 5 years and of the importance of local ties and of easily identifiable boundaries.
10. The Government propose that the criteria for the new local authorities should be similar to those prescribed for Greater London."
It is against that background that we have moved from the so-called rural weighting. This could be unfortunate. What may suit Greater London may not necessarily suit the sparsely-populated areas. There is no comparable area of scattered population in Greater London. The green belt is thickly populated. I ask my right hon. Friend to insert:
Subject to the need to prevent any division from being of such a large area, or from containing so many villages and hamlets, that the county councillor representing it would find it difficult to keep in touch with or to serve his or her constituents efficiently.
Unless this is accepted the rule will insist that the number of local government electors shall be as nearly as may be the same in every electoral division. The words "as nearly as may be" are virtually binding on local government commissions.
We have just accepted an Amendment which imports into the criteria the further qualification
Having regard to any change in the number or distribution of the local government electors of the county likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following the consideration.
This means that one is entitled to look forward to likely population movements. But population movements in rural areas may well be downward. The situation could easily arise that in order to get the number of electors required by these rather tight criteria, certain rural county divisions will continue to get larger and larger.
I have in mind thinly populated areas in Norfolk such as the Breckland. We must bear in mind the problems of representing mainly arable areas in which a small population is evenly scattered over a vast landscape. The elected member has a great problem in terms of time and distance in keeping in touch with electors. We feel this acutely as parliamentary representatives but at least we in Parliament are paid to do the job. In this case we are asking the local people to come forward and act as councillors in rural areas. They may find themselves asked to take on divisions which are unfairly large purely because of the counting of heads to get as near the average as possible.
This argument applies to local government perhaps even more than to parliamentary government, and the situation there is bad enough. In local government the councillor need to know the area, its geography, its land and its roads with a degree of detail which the parliamentary representative does not require. Certainly a local councillor will need to know the state of the roads, and even to know which trees have attracted tree preservation orders. There are all sorts of details which come up with which he must be familiar. There are many planning matters with which he must deal which require exact local knowledge of his area.
Planning decisions may mean that some villages will expand while others will not be allowed to. Therefore, an artificial distortion may creep in which prevents a sparsely populated area increasing its electorate at all.
For these reasons I feel that it would be wrong to make the criteria as rigid as they are at present. I hope that the Minister will take another look at this matter.


I am certain that the rural Members of Parliament and the rural representatives on county councils did not appreciate the effect of the Bill's proposals as they now stand. It was a shock to me to find that this new formula was being fastened on to the country areas and I think it is a mistake.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Oakes: We appreciate that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) is moving the Amendment on behalf of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) who is, very properly, celebrating his silver wedding this evening, but we on this side of the House totally resist the Amendment and hope the Government will do likewise.
In the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State made it very clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) that there would be no question in this Bill of rural weighting. If anything, I think that hon. Members on this side of the House could make out a far better case, if there were to be weighting at all, for urban weighting. It is the urban district councillor who has far more and more acute problems to deal with very often—problems of overcrowding, problems of traffic, problems of social services—than his rural counterpart, who may rarely come across them.
The Amendment is openly and clearly to make provision for rural weighting in county areas and in county districts. Under the Bill, and under Amendments we have passed this evening, it is clear that there is to be one county councillor for a county electoral district. If under the terms of the Amendment we take into account the rural nature of that district, that inevitably must considerably narrow down that area so that rural weighting must inevitably result—and, as one of my hon. Friends says, there might be political considerations in this. The Government, to their credit, have resisted many Amendments of this kind to the Bill, Amendments which could have led to political motivation, if one were to unscrupulous.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I could not have made myself clear. I am not wishing to

go back to rural weighting, even if I regret the decision which has been made. The Amendment does not go anywhere near back to rural weighting. If the hon. Member will look at it he will see that it seeks to avoid saddling a county member with a constituency he cannot fairly cover.

Mr. Oakes: Yes, but my point is that if we seek to do that, to narrow down the area to a smaller population and give it one county councillor, inevitably we have rural weighting. As to the point which the hon. Gentleman makes about a constituency in a rural area sometimes becoming smaller, the Boundary Commission will have continuous reviews of the areas and can take care of that so far as the populations are concerned.
This is a bad Amendment, and we on this side are totally opposed to it. I hope that the Minister of State will resist it and not even say he will have the matter considered further in the Lords.

Mr. Carlisle: I have considerable sympathy with the argument which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) has put forward and which, I am sure, could be summarised by saying that none of us, whether as a Member of this House or as a county councillor, likes to represent an area which is geographically so large that one feels one is in some way unable fully to keep in touch with all the interests one represents.
Of course, I appreciate that we have on many occasions argued that we must keep areas of the sort of size in which there can be cohesion and close relationship between the individual councillor and the area he represents, but I am afraid I must tell my hon. Friend that there is a serious difficulty in achieving what he is asking for. In a rural area one individual councillor of the county council must have a small electoral area because the population is sparse throughout that geographical area; and if, as a result, that electorate is to be small in number, so that it does not cover too large a geographical area, it follows, either that the other divisions in the county are to have electorates of similar size and that there will therefore be a substantially over-large council, or that some divisions will have fewer electors than others within that county.
Despite what my hon. Friend said, I do not think that there is any alternative


to that. It means that we are back on the question of rural weighting, and on that issue the Government have made their position clear. They put out the consultative paper to which my hon. Friend referred, they received the views of all the local authority bodies and all the political parties, and my right hon. Friend made clear on Second Reading that the principle of rural weighting should no longer be continued in local government.
I can see the strong argument which my hon. Friend puts forward, but other hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued equally strongly the case for urban weighting. I do not want to say tonight that one case is better than the other; arguments can be put forward on behalf of each. The Government have decided that the only fair and sensible thing to do is to decide that everyone's vote should count the same, and that is what the Bill provides by the wording in Schedule 11. I know it will disappoint my hon. Friend, but I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I am a little disappointed by my hon. and learned learned Friend's reply. Amendments Nos. 570 and 772 do not in principle reintroduce rural weighting; they merely provide greater flexibility in the criteria which have to be considered in respect of electoral areas. In certain areas there may be an equally strong or even stronger argument for urban weighting, and my hon. Friends and I may have made a mistake in not introducing an Amendment to cover urban weighting in certain areas. But these Amendments are aimed at coping with the exceptional case, and I accept that there may equally be an exceptional case in an urban area. I should therefore like my hon. and learned Friend to think again about this and consider whether an Amendment to cover both rural and urban weighting might be added in another place.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 758, in page 237, line 19, at end add 'of the county'.

No. 759, in page 237, leave out lines 19 to 23 and insert—
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above, in considering the electoral arrangements referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above regard shall be had to.
—[Mr. Carlisle.]

No. 556, in page 237, line 37, after 'that', insert 'London'.

—[Mr. Graham Page.]

No. 760, in page 238, line 3, leave out
 'so far as is reasonably practicable'
and insert—
'having regard to any change in the number or distribution of the local government electors of Greater London likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following the consideration'.

No. 761, in page 238, leave out lines 15 to 20 and insert—
'(6) Subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (5) above, in a case falling within that sub-paragraph, regard shall be had to'.

No. 762, in page 238, line 35, leave out
 'so far as is reasonably practicable '
and insert—
'Having regard to any change in the number or distribution of the local government electors of the district or borough likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following the consideration—
(a)'

No. 763, in page 238, line 39, leave out '(3)' and insert '(b)'.

No. 764, in page 238, line 42, leave out '(4)' and insert 'and (c)'.

No. 765, in page 239, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—
'(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above, in considering the electoral arrangements referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above, regard shall be had to'.

No. 766, in page 239, line 29, leave out 'the number and' and insert 'any change in the number or'.

No. 767, in page 239, line 30, leave out
'and any change in either'.

Orders of the Day — Clause 80

QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION AND HOLDING OFFICE AS MEMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY.

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, Amendment No. 588, in page 51, line 14, leave out 'twenty-one' and insert 'eighteen'.
This is an Amendment to which we on this side of the House attach some importance. It is a proposal that young people, having been given the right to vote at 18, should have the right to stand for election, and to serve on a local authority. Although this matter was debated in


Committee, I regret that the Government have not had second and wiser thoughts and do not propose to bring this about.
We now have a totally irrational proposal to be enacted into our law. It is the proposal, for the first time as far as I can ascertain in our law, that men and women have the right to vote but do not have the right to serve. I believe this to be an indefensible position.
The House has previously had a very honourable record on the subject of trying to involve young people in the responsibilities of citizenship. In 1967, the Latey Committee, which sat under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Latey, produced proposals which found wide acceptance on both sides of the House on the question of conferring upon people at the age of 18 all the rights of adulthood. I do not want to take up an inordinate length of time, but it may be useful to refresh our memories on the reasons the Latey Committee gave for saying that young people at the age of 18 ought to have the rights of adulthood and the responsibilities that went with them. I could not put the matter in a more satisfactory form.
First, the Latey Committee said that:
There is undeniably a great increase in maturity towards the age of 18. The vast majority of young people are, in fact, running their own lives, making their own decisions and behaving as responsible adults by the time they are 18. Those of our witnesses who seemed most closely in touch with the young favoured the age of 18 as the age at which it was not only safe to give responsibility, but undesirable, if not indeed dangerous, to withhold it.
There is even greater force in that argument today, five years later, than there was at the time the Latey Committee produced it. One thing that is apparent from looking at the young scene today is that if one does not treat young people as adults, they become completely disillusioned with society and this has the most damaging effect.
One of the things to which I should have thought that all of us would have regard was the state of opinion, and especially the state of the youth opinion in this country, about the body politic of the nation. Many young people are cynical, perhaps because they do not understand the political processes, and they are opting out of those processes. One of the things that disappointed many

of us was that, having been given votes at 18 at the last General Election, the full advantage that many of us thought would be taken was not taken by young people eligible to vote.

10.30 p.m.

If that analysis is right, it is important that young people should be enabled to play a responsible part in the government of the areas in which they live. To ignore their right to serve on local authorities will only increase the cynicism of young people and will be a self-destructive factor.

The fourth reason given by the Latey Committee is that 18 is the age at which on the whole the young seem to reckon themselves to come of age. In place of the magic age of 21, coming-out parties now take place at 18. Finally, the Latey Committee gave as the fifth of its argument that 18 is already an important watershed in life. The Latey Committee mentioned some of the things which started at 18—the paying of full National Insurance contributions, the ability to enter a public house and consume alcohol, the loss of certain protections given under court orders, the freedom to carry out a whole range of activities such as going up in balloons, engaging in street trading, and driving motor cars. The Latey Committee made the case most convincingly.

Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended that the vote should be granted at age 20. To its great credit, the House of Commons on a free vote overturned that recommendation and superimposed the right to vote at 18. It is inconceivable, now that the opportunity arises in a Local Government Bill, that we should not take the logical step of allowing people to serve at 18.

The Government seem to be saying to young people, "We do not trust you. We want your vote but not your service. We do not trust you to make an effective contribution to local government". Speaking for the Labour Party, I reject that view. I believe that the present generation of young people have a greater concern and idealism and a greater degree of compassion for society as a whole than any generation of young people has had. This should be so, in view of the advance of universal education. Any of us who are in touch with youth know


that young people are more concerned about the evils they see around them in society than any other section of society. This is greatly to the credit of young people. This is why they involve themselves in organisations of all types.

I will mention some of the great issues on which young adults feel passionately and on which they will no doubt make mistakes if they are allowed to serve on local authorities, as we all made mistakes when we were younger. However, in these matters their sense of enthusiasm and involvement is needed more today than it ever was. There is, first, the question of the environment. One knows from talking to sixth formers that the whole question of the environment is of considerable concern. Young people are concerned about plant life, about the effect of modern civilisation on the whole of nature, the state of our rivers and beaches, and the opportunities to save the countryside and wild life. This is a matter which the young regard as very important.

They are concerned also about planning and noise. They have a greater interest and involvement in this subject than most adults have. They are very concerned about the effect of planning upon the lives of ordinary people and the failure of planners, generally speaking, to take into account the effect of planning decisions on humanity. All this must be to the good and should be encouraged. If ever there was a subject in which we need the impatience of youth, it is the subject of maintaining a good environment and making it possible for our successors to enjoy the great and rich heritage of this country.

Housing is another matter in which our youth are interested. I suppose there is hardly a sixth form or youth club in this country which has not at some time or other involved itself with Shelter. Our young people are greatly concerned with homelessness, particularly in large cities, and the degradation of slum dwelling. In the last General Election my son distributed literature for me, and on his return home he was inflamed by the intolerable slum conditions which he had found in my constituency in Birmingham. He delivered a verbal assault on me and asked what were the local authority and Parliament doing allowing people to live

in those disgraceful, degrading back-to-back conditions.

That is a typical example of youth today. As one who has served as a Minister of State in the Department of Housing and Local Government, as it was, I am aware of the great concern of youth for Shelter and other organisations dealing with homelessness. I am sure that they could produce an irresistible movement for change in those areas to which I have referred.

The education service is another factor It would not be a bad idea if young people at the age of 18, who were still receiving education and were moving away from their A levels to scholarships to universities, had the opportunity to serve on local authorities. They would let it be known how important it is to produce sensible schemes to enable people to gain scholarships to universities, teacher training colleges and the like. It would bring a breath of fresh air to our education committees if young people were able to relate their personal experiences, as would be the case if the Amendment were accepted.

There is the whole question of the Youth Service. The Government, I am sorry to say, have deserted the Youth Service.

Mr. Carlisle: Nonsense.

Mr. Howell: It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying "Nonsense". The Government completely rejected the Youth and Community Report of 1970, of which committee I happened to be the chairman, which made new proposals for the Youth Service. The youth organisations are greatly concerned because the young adult is being completely neglected as a result of the Government's decision. Yet there was never a time, particularly in our cities, when it was more important to develop a young adult service and a youth service.
One of the causes of the boredom and frustrations in so much of our urban situation is that the facilities for young people to pursue leisure activities fails to match the need of the time. Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that, I am sure that he will agree that in the argument about the matter the voice of young people ought at least to be heard on the local authority.
Pre-eminently, I suppose, young people today, especially those not at a university or college, have more leisure time than any other section of society except the retired. They are certainly the ones who are able to enjoy active leisure pursuits, they are the ones who want to see the provision of more sports facilities, more swimming baths, more opportunities to enjoy leisure, more cultural opportunities, more facilities for theatre and good music, more opportunities for pop music, a culture in its own right embraced by the mass of young people today.
One has only to spell out the services in which young people have a legitimate interest and on which they ought to have opportunity to express their voice to see that the case for the Amendment is overwhelming.
In Committee, the Government's reply was based on two arguments. First, we were told that this was a matter for a Speaker's Conference. That argument does not stand up. If the House of Commons has decided that young people should have the right to vote at 18, then, with great respect to Mr. Speaker, we do not need a Speaker's Conference to accept the logic of that decision, that those who have the right to vote should have the right to serve on the authority for which they may vote.
The second argument was even more puerile, if I may say so. The Minister said—this is col. 1406 of the Official Report—that there should be time for further reflection. I suppose that all Ministers, if they have no case, resort to the argument that they need more time, no matter how untenable the position in which they have put themselves.
I hope that the Government will have second thoughts. Let them accept the Amendment now, or reconsider the matter in the other place. Their position is impossible to defend. They say to young people, "We want your vote, but we do not want your voice. We do not want to harness your concern. We do not want to give you the right and obligation to stand for election to membership of the local authority for which you and all others may vote".
The case for the Amendment is overwhelming. If it is not accepted, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not fail to sustain it in the Lobby.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) felt it necessary to raise this matter again on Report, and I regret the tone of some of his remarks about the Government's attitude to it. I felt at the time that his only purpose must be to have a vote, and he has confirmed that in his last sentence.

Mr. Denis Howell: Why not?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Latey Committee Report and implies that the Government's attitude on this matter is, "We want your vote but we do not trust you to serve". If that argument is so conclusive and overwhelmingly obvious, I can only point out that it was the Government of which he was a member who brought in a Bill to lower the voting age but did nothing about lowering the age for representation. The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but it was the Labour Government—he now says that the Labour Party is committed to this principle—who brought in the Representation of the People Act, 1969, under which the age for voting was lowered, but did nothing about the age for representation.

10.45 p.m.

When the matter was debated in Committee, what was said on behalf of the Government, and I repeat it here tonight, was that on matters of this kind we have for many years achieved a situation of parity between eligibility for candidature to local or parliamentary Government. Proposed changes on eligibilty for membership of Parliament have always been referred over the years to Mr. Speaker's Conference. It was therefore suggested at that time that since we felt that parity was important in the right to stand for both parliamentary and local elections it was decided to refer the question of people being eligible to stand at the age of 18 to Mr. Speaker's Conference.

As I understand it all parties in the House were consulted on the matter and agreed to that course of action. Mr. Speaker has agreed to preside over a conference with that question on the agenda.

Mr. Denis Howell: Mr. Denis Howell indicated dissent.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member for Small Heath shakes his head, but that has been the normal method of dealing


with matters of that kind. If any change of parliamentary candidature follows from a recommendation by the Conference it could be reflected by a change for membership of the local authorities. One Bill could deal with both matters. If I accepted the hon. Member's Amendment tonight he would appear at the Dispatch Box in a few months' time saying that it was monstrously illogical of the Government to accept the argument for local elections, but not to have accepted it at the same time for parliamentary elections. It is right that Mr. Speaker's Conference should look at matters like that.
The hon. Member's arguments about the interest of youth in matters like homelessness and things of that kind apply just as much to national politics as they do to local politics. Therefore, particularly in view of the way the hon. Member ended his speech, and in view of his Government's record on the matter since the Latey Report was published, I am bound to say that he moved the Amendment tonight not because he believes this is not a matter which should go to Mr. Speaker's Conference but in an attempt to gain what he believes will be a short-term political advantage by claiming that his party is interested in 18-year-olds having the vote and that the Government are not. That is a gross parody of the situation and I hope that if the Amendment goes to a Division it will be rejected.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I had the pleasure of serving on Mr. Speaker's Conference and I took the view that there was a distinction between serving on an authority and voting for it. It was that view which caused Mr. Speaker's Conference to come to the decision it did. Any person of 18 years of age in July, 1970, would be 21 or 22 before he had the right to vote in a General Election.
I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) that 18-year-olds have experience of life. They know what it is all about. They are concerned with individual cases and with causes and they are concerned with people. There is a point here which should be re-examined. Mr. Speaker's Conference

should consider the whole matter of whether to allow not just 20 per cent, of the 18-year-olds, but all of them to stand and to vote. There is a slight defect in the argument we are making from the Opposition benches, but equally there is a greater defect in the Government's argument. We should try to arrange a system whereby 18-year-olds are allowed both to vote and stand for election, and not have to wait until they are 21 or 22.
I accept the points made by the Minister, but my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell)has made the point very clearly that at 18 years of age a person is sufficiently independent, and capable of assessing his ability and the difficulties in society, to be a very worth-while member not only of a local authority but of this House. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will follow the lead from this side and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Maddan: I respect the experience and the views of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), but I should not like it to be thought by silence that I and other hon. Members on both sides looked forward to a recommendation from Mr. Speaker's Conference that people of 18 should be enabled to stand for Parliament or local authorities. The distinction between representing people and casting one of many votes in an election is real.
I do not want to disparage 18-year-olds, but however capable they are, and however high their intellect, their experience, which contributes to judgment, must be substantially less than it will be even when they are 21.

Mr. Lomas: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that a person who has been at a technical college, has left at 18 and is in employment for three years until he is 21 is less fitted to represent the community than a person who has spent a closeted life at Oxford, Cambridge or some other university, and who does not know what the world is all about?

Mr. Maddan: I do not want to draw that sort of comparison. Since we are on a one-way escalator—the ages always come down, not up—I do not want to waste time by suggesting that perhaps the logic of that argument might be that 21,


because it is too low for some, is too low for all.
There is merit in making the honour of representation of constituents, whether in this House or in local Government, something to be treasured, something which if necessary one may have to wait for. Things we do not have automatically available to us at the very first moment may be that much more important. Most of us who have courted our wives may learn from that experience that very often a little delay underlines the importance of what we are taking on. The same is true in this instance.
I did not want that point of view to go unrecorded.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I am concerned about the odd principles of the Government Front Bench. I well remember the argument for inserting subsection (l)(c). It was said that if someone paid rates in an area it was only right that he should have his say, that he should have a vote. It is odd then to argue that a man with a wife and family whose home is in the area cannot stand for election because he is under 21.
Is it right that someone with a beautiful house down in Surrey, who happens to have his lawyer's business in my constituency, can vote and stand for election in my area, even though he knows about it virtually only that which allows him to make his money, whereas the boy or girl living in the area, contributing to its worth, taking part in its activities, knowing all about it, cannot stand for the council to put forward their views about the area? Why do the Government believe it right that people whose residence is miles from my constituency should be allowed to stand for the council because they stay there two or three hours in the day and call it their principal place of work, whereas people living and working in Hackney are not allowed to stand? I hope that the Government will explain the logic of their thinking. Or are they again attempting to bias the whole legislation they are putting through in favour of their own friends?

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I regret the way in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) put his case because he frequently returns to the complaints about the Youth

Service and the report of the committee of which he was chairman, although he got a full answer a few months ago. After hearing this debate, I am sure that the matter should be considered by the Speaker's Conference, on which I also serve.

Mr. John Silkin: I am sure that when the Minister of State comes to read Hansard, and possibly a little earlier, he will regret some of the things he said. It is never a good thing to impute motives to those to whom one is opposed. If he had been present in Committee, he would have found that that was not the way in which matters were handled. I am sorry to detain the House for the three minutes necessary to bring the hon. and learned Gentleman up to date, to educate him. The Amendment has been moved because, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir Richard Sharples) knows, however charmingly he put his view, we disagree with him and said that we would raise the matter again. It is an important matter to us.
I am not certain that there is any electoral advantage in our proposal. I cannot see that allowing young people of 18 to stand as councillors can be considered as providing short-term advantage to any political party. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) seemed to think it disadvantageous. To us, this is simply a matter of justice. We are concerned with local democracy, which means giving the right to vote and to rule to the people. If it is true that at 18 one is mature enough to serve the community, the community is very stupid to reject that service.
Young people were serving the community in Athens 2,500 years ago, and I would never have thought that the hon. Member for Hove was even older than that. There is nothing new about our proposal. There is nothing new in allowing people disqualified from serving in Parliament from serving on a local authority. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman might care to look into the history of women's suffrage. Women could stand for and serve on parish councils from 1870 onwards but it was not until 1918 that the first batch of women got the vote.
Let us forget the question of which Government did what. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small


Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) says that on the Representation of the People Act. 1969, there was a free vote on the issue of 18-year-olds getting the vote. As an ex-Chief Whip, my memory is clouded on the events of the time. But I do remember that the present Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party was against votes at 18, and he may have been right.
But the question then was whether young people should have a vote in a parliamentary election. A General Election was coming along in 1970. Perhaps the Labour Government should, amongst all the other things they did, for good or evil, have included a Bill enabling young people to fight local elections at 18. Let us say that that Government were remiss is not doing so. But we are here not concerned with the Labour Government of that time and with what they did or did not do. We are here to decide whether or not young people of 18 should be able to stand as candidates in local government elections.

11 p.m.

I am not averse to a Speaker's Conference, if one must have one, to decide whether people of 18 should be able to stand for Parliament. It seems a very odd way of doing things, because quite clearly they will do so. With due respect to the hon. Member for Hove, I doubt whether there is any hon. or right hon. Member present who believes that we will stop people of 18 from standing for Parliament in due course if they want to. Let us say that this is the way in which we do it. We do things traditionally here: we act 30 years after

everyone else has decided that it is right to do so.

But that has nothing to do with local government elections. It is a separate point altogether. The very fact that the Representation of the People Act has been mentioned shows that it is a different point. We are here concerned with the Local Government Bill. If the Minister of State cares to read the Second Reading debate he will see that I asked his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at that time: "Incidentally, why do you disqualify people of 18 from standing for local government?" and that the right hon. Gentleman turned to the Minister and said, "Why do we?" One thereby realised that the right hon. Gentleman himself thought that there was a distinction between local government and Parliament.

We have a chance of doing something. It will not hurt anyone. If anyone thinks that the whole of our democracy is in imminent danger because young men and women of 18 will be able to stand as local government candidates, though very few will, all I can say is that he has a very timid disposition. I am glad to advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the Amendment, and I also, in the most non-partisan way possible, appeal to hon. and right hon. Members on the Government side to join us and so settle the issue once and for all.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Houst divided: Ayes 127, Noes 139.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 470, in page 51, line 16 after 'is', insert
and thereafter he continues to be'.

I suggest that with this Amendment it would be convenient to take Amendment No. 471, in page 188, line 5, at end insert—
'local government elector', means a person registered as a local government elector in the


register of electors in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts.
The effect of the Amendment would be to oblige a member of a local authority whose qualification for election and membership was as a local government elector to retain that qualification throughout his membership. As the House will know, Clause 80(1) provides for the qualifications for election and membership of a local authority and sets out five, and we have just been discussing age. Another is that he should be a local government elector.
If the qualification for membership depends merely on the fact that he is a local government elector, by the Amendment he will be obliged to retain that qualification throughout his period of office in order to remain a member. That was the position under Section 57 of the 1933 Act and it means that if he ceases to be a local government elector during his period of office, unless he has one of the other qualifications set out in the Clause, his right to membership would cease. Amendment No. 471 merely defines "local government elector", a definition originally omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 726, in page 51, line 28, at end insert—
Provided that if any of the above qualifications claimed by a member of a local authority ceases and no other qualification exists, the local authority shall declare the office to be vacant in accordance with the provisions of section 87 below.

11.15 p.m.

This Amendment seeks to ensure that a person once elected to a council should continue to remain qualified throughout the period of his service as a councillor. As the Clause is drafted, once the person is elected there is no need for this qualification to continue; it can stop the day afterwards or even a minute afterwards. A man may move away altogether, but because he had 12 months' residence or worked for 12 months in the area prior to nomination, he could continue to hold office.

What is more, the office of councillor is itself regarded as a qualification of voluntary work within the area. A councillor once elected can in theory continue long

after he ceases to have any other connection with the area. It is a kind of local government perpetual motion. The Minister may be interested to hear that we have examples of this having taken place and, should he require them, I will see that those examples are made available to him.

Surely the qualifications should be continuous. It seems absurd that because a man was qualified before the date of nomination that qualification should remain with him. Under the original 1933 Act the words "a member of a local authority" had some meaning. If the qualification of being an elector or of owning land ceases, the councillor ceases to be qualified and comes off the council. If all the qualifications are relevant only before that time, then the words have no meaning whatever.

I realise that this is a somewhat late stage at which to bring up this Amendment again. We have suggested it before and we have tried to show that there is some justice in it. It may be difficult for the Minister of State to reconsider the matter, but if he looks at it with a fresh mind he will see there is something in what I am saying.

I beg the Minister to reconsider the matter before it reaches another place. It seems absurd that the good work of Amendment No. 470, which I heartily support, should be undone by the words as they are at present in Clause 80.

Mr. Carlisle: The effect of this Amendment is that if any qualification claimed by a person who wishes to be a member of the council then ceases during the period he is on the council, he shall become ineligible to continue by Clause 87. So far as concerns the qualification of being a local government elector, the requirement that this should be a continuing qualification has already been met by a previous Government Amendment.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) argues that the man should cease to be qualified if he fails to have a continuing qualification in regard to the matters set out in paras (b), (c), (d) and (e). The difficulty is that they do not refer to a continuing qualification, but refer to a necessity to have a qualification at the date of election. Therefore, if on the day after the election the person ceases


to have the qualification, he still continues to be qualified and does not become disqualified under Clause 87; whereas if he is qualified as a local elector, rather than by having been a resident for 12 months, then since this is a continuing qualification he ceases to be qualified. The difficulty is that the qualification specifically relates to the person's situation for the 12 months up to the date of nomination. I have some knowledge of the one about principal or only place of work because I was the Minister who in the 1970–71 Session took through the Bill about qualifications for councillors, but on the local government electorate and residence one, and it seems these are tied very much together, at the moment I am advised that, since there the qualification relates to a qualification obtained prior to the date of election it is difficult to see how it can be continuing. I am quite prepared to consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said—

Mr. John Silkin: It may short circuit matters if I say that of course the whole point is that it does apply prior to nomination, whereas I am hoping that it will continue, and I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he will look at the matter again because I think, as I heard him speak, that he himself is a bit doubtful about the logic of it.

Mr. Carlisle: As I say, I am quite prepared to look at this. I cannot make any commitment in any way, but I should like at least to look at the basis of this.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: That was a rather disappointing reply even though the Minister said he would look at this question again. I think his reason for apparently rejecting the Amendment in the first place was weak. All of us can point to examples of what has happened in councils we know. I know of an example, not in my own county, but not far away from it. A councillor, a couple of months after his election to the council, moved to another town 200 miles away, but he could remain a member of the council for the remaining three years, provided he came back once every six months under the six months' rule under the present Regulations. So long as once in six months he trotted back for a five-minute appearance he could stay on the council for the whole three years. On certain councils

such a person could keep his membership for not only three but four years.
I do not see why somebody who qualifies under paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) and does not qualify under (a) can disappear for a couple of months. It is quite wrong that if he does he should remain a member of the council for four years, only coming back once every six months to register a vote, for otherwise he can be thrown off the council by a vote of the council. I see no real difficulty in finding a form of words which would do for (b), (c) and (d) in particular exactly what is already done under (a).

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 81

DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION AND HOLDING OFFICE AS MEMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY

Mr. Pardoe: I beg to move, Amendment No. 270, in page 51, line 39, leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can also discuss Amendments No. 236, in page 51, line 39, leave out from 'holds' to 'or' in page 52, line 6, and insert
'office as one of the chief officers of the authority'.

No. 237, in page 52, line 5, leave out 'or by any person holding any such office or employment'.

No. 238, in page 52, leave out lines 21 to 35.

No. 271, in page 52, line 21, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

No. 239, in page 52, line 36, leave out subsection (4).

No. 240, in page 53, line 24 [Clause 82], leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 54.

No. 423, in page 54, line 3, at end insert—
(c) employees of local authorities in grades or occupations whose pay and conditions were primarily determined by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Services (Manual Workers), the National Joint Council for Workshops for the Blind, the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Services (Building and Civil Engineering), or the National Joint Council for Local Authorities.' Services (Engineering Craftsmen) at 1st January 1972.

No. 424, in page 61, line 26 [Clause 94], leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

(2) If a member of a local authority has any direct interest in any matter concerning the terms and conditions of employment of employees of the local authority, and he is present at a meeting of the local authority, or one of its committees or sub-committees at which the matter is raised, or at which any appointment to a body negotiating the terms and conditions of employment is the subject of consideration, he shall at the meeting and as soon as practicable after its commencement, disclose the fact, and shall not take part in the consideration or discussion of the matter or appointment or vote on a question with respect to it.

(3) 'Employee of a local authority' in sub section (2) of section 94 shall be deemed to include any paid office or job (other than the offices, of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Deputy Chairman) to which appointment is made by or confirmed by the local authority, or some joint board or committee on which the authority is represented.

Mr. Pardoe: This Amendment is in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and so also is one of the associated Amendments.
I want immediately to declare an interest, since one category of local government employees I shall be talking about is that of teachers and I act as consultant to the National Association of Schoolmasters.
Since my remarks may be thought by some hon. Gentlemen to reflect back to some earlier remarks about one particular county council and I gather that some hon. Gentlemen thought my criticism of Durham referred to something other than it did, I would say that I made no allegations at all about Durham County Council in that sense, but merely referred to the fact that some two years ago some teachers struck against that council and the council dismissed them, and that I thought that a rather odd thing for a Labour-controlled council to do. I unreservedly withdraw any suggestions which, other than that, it may be thought I made.
Clause 81 is the disqualification Clause. It disqualifies a great many people from standing for election to local authorities. I do not believe it is right in a democracy to disqualify whole categories of people from standing for local councils. Basically, the Clause disqualifies local government employees from being members of their employing authorities. I recognise that that is the

present position, and the Government may therefore say, as they said in Committee, that they are only doing what has always been done before. But I maintain that it is wrong under the present system, and it will be even more wrong under the Bill, because the Bill extends the disqualification to a great many more people. The larger local authorities, coupled with the disappearance of the county boroughs, will reduce the number of local government employees who are able to be councillors in neighbouring council areas.
I have never been able to understand the raison ďêtre of disqualification from standing for local government election Presumably it is largely because of a supposed clash of interest, and indeed there are certain areas of local government in which there is a clash of interest. If teachers were to sit on an education committee there would be a direct clash of interest. If rodent operators or dustmen were to sit on the committees which control their areas of work, again there might be a clash of interest. But there is a lot more to local government than just these areas, and a lot more in the case of teachers than the education committee.
A teacher, for instance, might serve on the highways committee; there could not possibly be said to be a clash of interest there. It might be difficult for a clerk of a council to sit on his own authority, although there might not be a clash of interest, but teachers and other local government employees are much further removed from local authority operations than is the clerk. If the Government feel that they cannot accept that a clerk can sit on his own authority, perhaps they will introduce a disqualification clause for clerks or those who are directly involved in the day-to-day running of a local authority.
Disqualification is an unnecessary restraint on the democratic rights of the great majority of local government employees. To use the clash of interests argument is pretty mad when one considers other clashes of interest that inevitably exist. Why, for instance, should we think it right for a local authority to be weighted heavily with builders and estate agents? Why do we think it right even in the House for a Minister of Agriculture to be a farmer? I am happy with the


thought that the Minister of Agriculture has expertise in farming, but he stands at the Dispatch Box and produces out of his hat largesse of Government money some of which inevitably will end up in his own farm. We do not disqualify a fanner from being Minister of Agriculture, nor I suppose would we disqualify a doctor from being Secretary of State for the Social Services.
There are other clashes of interest throughout the public service, and we accept this. Having accepted those clashes, it is ridiculous for us to baulk at the idea that teachers can serve on a county authority. I see no reason at all why local government employees should not serve on the council which employs them.
The Bill will, unfortunately, limit the categories of people coming forward for local government. For instance, one of the big problems in the larger rural county councils and the big districts will be how to ensure a sufficient representation of working age councillors. We shall end up in places like Cornwall and Devon with a heavy preponderance on the new district councils of the retired and self-employed. Working people will be very under-represented. This is a worrying factor in local government. It is anti-democracy. We ought not, by Clause 81, to be limiting any more than is necessary the categories of people who can serve on local authorities.

11.30 p.m.

The Clause is quite unnecessarily wide. If the Government wished to disqualify anyone, they might disqualify clerks and direct local government officers and have done with it. I would not go as far as that. But the Government could do that. But in subsection (4) we are disqualifying
A person who is for the time being a member, officer or servant of…the Passenger Transport Executive.
That is fairly distant from the direct local authority under which he lives. I see no reason for that kind of disqualification.

I recognise that the Government have already turned this down. They may well be intending to turn it down again tonight, but I hope not. I hope that the Government will give at least some indication that they want as many people as possible to be eligible for local government. I

hope that the Government will even be prepared to make some concession on particular categories of local government employees which they have disqualified by the Clause.

Mr. George Thomas: The House will be aware that this is a major subject. Over 2 million of our fellow citizens are in the employment of local authorities and are disbarred from giving service to the public.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has moved an Amendment which was moved by the Opposition in Committee. Learning from our experience in Committee, we have suggested to the House that it is right to help the Government by eliminating from eligibility for service in local government those who are known as chief officers. They are the policy makers. They have as much influence, as councillors themselves, and sometimes more. Permanent officials who are in charge of departments are obviously in a special category. To have a town clerk being able to serve as a member of the local authority is an absurdity. We see the strength of the arguments advanced by the Minister in Committee. But this does not apply to the millions of ordinary people who serve the local authority, some by digging roads, some by working on the buses, some by serving in the fire service. They are gifted, intelligent people who are the cornerstone of our democracy.
We all know that both sides find it difficult from time to time to have candidates of the right calibre coming forward to serve in local government. We hope that the larger authorities and the greater power they will have will attract ambitious, able and gifted people from all sectors of our community. But the law restricts them. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister said in Committee:
The intention behind these Clauses, and our repeat of them in a consolidated form, is to ensure the probity and integrity of local government both in fact and in appearance."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10th February, 1972S; c. 1488.]
We must trust the electorate more. No electorate would fill its council with bus drivers, teachers, firemen or any other special category. It is an insult to these people to suggest that somehow they would give an appearance of lacking the


integrity in local government of estate agents, for example, to whom reference has been made, and other professional people who gain by being on the council, even though they might never speak on a subject in which they have a direct interest but the knowledge they acquire is of advantage to them.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who declared his interest because he is a consultant to the National Association of Schoolmasters, will know, as the House will know, that I have an interest to declare as a spokesman for the National Union of Teachers, which represents a quarter of a million teachers. I am not basing the strength of my argument on arithmetic; I try to deal in higher realms. The hon. Member tonight revealed his ignorance and his brief was appalling. He said that if teachers served on education committees there would be a clash of interest. But the education committee is the one committee on which teachers are entitled to serve. The hon. Member should go back to the NAS to be taken back to school and taught.
The absurdity of the present position is that a teacher can serve on the education committee, in which he has a direct interest. He can share in the appointment of head teachers, he can enjoy all the privileges of a full member of the council concerning education, but he is not allowed to say a word on anything else. It is an absurdity which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House have appreciated in their constituencies.
I remind the House that there are whole sectors of our community of gifted, trained people for whom the only employment open to them is local government service. I think overwhelmingly of social workers in the public service, and teachers certainly. Firemen can serve only the fire authority and, under the powers of the Clause, because they have taken up that calling, they cannot ever expect to have the same right as the rest of us to serve on local government and to be trusted by the community. Our Amendment seeks to draw attention to the fact that we are denying ourselves as a country the ability of people who have a contribution to make and, what is more, people whom both sides of the

House badly need in the service of the public in local government.
As the Minister will no doubt confirm, the Government have gone much further by the Bill because they now extend the disqualification to people who work for public boards like joint water boards. A man might only be digging holes for a joint water board, on which half a dozen authorities are represented—even his own authority does not have a majority voice—but because he works for that water board he shall not stand for the council. It cannot make sense. Both sides of the House will wish to put the matter right. The Amendment would secure that, with the exception of chief officers, employees of local authorities should be free to stand as candidates. The public exercises its discipline. The electorate will soon reject people if it thinks that there is a lack of balance.
In Committee, the Minister, who is a reasonable man and sets a good example for the Welsh Office, made sympathetic noises and felt the strength of our argument. I hope that the Welsh Office has learned, since the Committee stage. The Minister sent us away from the Committee happy; he said in substance, "We all want to do the right thing. I undertake to give this question careful consideration", because both sides of the Committee realised that it is offence to our democracy that 2½ million people should be denied the right to serve in local government. Our system of democracy would be strengthened if the Minister were to say that he is prepared to introduce a form of words, either tonight or in another place, designed to meet the wishes of the overwhelming body of the people, namely, that with the exception of chief officers, local authority employees should be able to stand as local government candidates.

Mr. Graham Page: It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage. The general rule which we are debating is one which has been accepted as fundamental to local government. It is that a local government employee should not be entitled to sit as a member of his employing authority. I am glad that we are probing this rule and not taking it for granted. It is a rule of long standing, rather like the rule we have in the House that a Member shall not hold office of profit under the Crown. This


sort of thing touches the probity and integrity of public authorities.
I am not convinced that this rule can be elevated to a principle fundamental to local government, that it shows some separation between the elected member who is responsible for the main decisions and the employees who must carry them out. It is purely and simply based on the question: to what extent will the member's employment by his own authority influence his decisions or enable him to influence his colleagues on the council? If it is something to do with private gain, he may well be influenced by it or he may well be able to influence his colleagues because of his knowledge of the subject.

Mr. Lomas: I speak as a sponsored candidate for the National Union of Public Employees. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a dustman or an office clerk will exert a tremendous influence on the affairs of a local authority? I implore the right hon. Gentleman to grow up.

Mr. Page: That was exactly the argument I was about to advance, if only the hon. Gentleman had waited. In most cases of employment by a council, we ought to hold to the rule which has been recognised. Can it be believed that the man who empties the dustbins would be influenced by his job in the decisions he reaches as a member? Is there some line which we can draw between those who may be influenced and those who are so remote from the decisions of the council that they are unlikely to be influenced? I said that I thought we ought to retain the general rule and if we are going to do anything, seek exceptions to it. Therefore, I would not accept the Amendment which would destroy the rule altogether.

11.45 p.m.

The other Amendments reflect the view with which I myself expressed sympathy in Committee, that a result of relaxation could be very beneficial, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in opening up the field of recruitment to the local authorities, although I must say that that will already result to some extent from this reorganisation of local authorities because in future the local authority employee will be able if he is employed by the district, to serve as a county councillor or, if he is employed by the county, serve as a

district councillor. Those who reside at present in the county boroughs do not have that opportunity. I think we shall be throwing membership open to a substantially larger field than at present. But that hardly deals with the point about disqualification.

The Amendments deal with various ways of relaxing the rule, but I find that all the Amendments seem to create greater anomalies than they remove. Amendment No. 236 would disqualify an officer only if he were one of the chief officers of the authority. One needs to go a little deeper into it than that. I expressed it in Committee in a rough way as being those who were employed in the town hall as opposed to those who were employed elsewhere, though that is not at all a statutory form of division.

I will not go through all the Amendments, but I think the House will find that there are anomalies in each of those—for instance we would be led to admit certain teachers and not others. If we admit the bus drivers employed by the PTE, why should not we admit the man who mends the roads on which the buses run? These Amendments only tinker with the subject, and I gave the undertaking in Standing Committee that I should like to be further advised on this and think about it further to see to what extent I could carry with me any of the local authority associations.

I have to tell the House that the main associations and the GLC, on being further consulted, are all dead against any relaxation, and I must admit that I failed to carry them with me.

Mr. George Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that I asked him in Committee whether he had consulted the trade unions such as NALGO, the NUT, NAS and all those trade unions concerned with local authorities. Would he tell the House their opinion?

Mr. Page: I do not think I needed to consult them. I knew their opinions. They have the same views on this subject as we are expressing on both sides of the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Armstrong: The Minister has shown how impossible it is to draw a line, has he not? The real issue is whether the House should decide that


certain people shall be prevented from serving in local government, or whether we should leave it to the good sense of the local electorate. Can the right hon. Gentleman envisage circumstances in which, for instance, the town clerk or the deputy town clerk would even dream of standing for election, or, if he did, that local opinion would not express itself?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman takes extreme examples. I should have to draw the line much further away from those very senior chief officers. Obviously, such men probably would not stand, and we need not worry about excluding them. But there are many officers whom one would not wish to see stand as members in respect of whom the rule about declaring an interest is not sufficient.
What I am looking for is somewhere to draw a line, at which point it would be sufficient to say, "Yes, this person may stand and serve as a member of the authority by which he is employed, but when any matters arise on the terms and conditions of his employment he should disclose his interest, not speak, and not vote". If we can find the right division there, we may have achieved something. But I tell the House frankly that at present I have not carried the local authorities with me, and I have not, therefore, endeavoured at this stage to draft provisions to bring that into effect.
I am advised that it would take about 20 Clauses to deal with this matter properly. I am not prepared at this stage of this Bill to take on board another 20 Clauses. I ask the House to appreciate that there are problems here, that we wish to retain the general rule, that we wish to find some reasonable line of demarcation, and we wish to take the local authority associations with us in thinking out the right provisions.
My own feeling about it is that we are being extremely hypocritical if we exclude all employees of the local authority and do not exclude others who have, perhaps a greater interest—I make no reference to topical cases, but they immediately come to mind—in the affairs of the council and may well be influenced more greatly than employees of the authority would be.
I ask the House to leave it to us for a further period and not to delay the Bill by asking for a further 20 Clauses in it.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister has helped the House somewhat. In my view, he has been more than fair on this subject both in Committee and in the House tonight in the sense that he recognises the problem and acknowledges that we are all involved in a hypocritical approach to it. He said that he was not prepared to take 20 Clauses on board. We could help him by suggesting 20 Clauses which he could take out, and perhaps he will consider that as a vague possibility.
There is not much dividing us on this issue, and I think it right to remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee, since our common purpose must be to arrive at the solution to a problem which we all recognise. On 10th February, the Minister said:
I do not believe that, at a certain level of employment or in a certain area of employment by a local authority, if an employee stands as a member there is any serious chance of failure of integrity or lack of probity. As has been pointed out, there are many occasions when a person employed in private undertakings becomes a member and he may be just as suspect. There is a wide area where the employee of the local authority cannot possibly be said to be suspect if he becomes a member."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10th February, 1972; c. 1492.]
I have only one observation to make on that, arising out of the persistence of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). We want to get away from emphasising the word "suspect" and talk more about the first part of what the Minister said in Standing Committee. Experience tells us that in the wide sphere of local Government there is no loss of integrity or probity among the people who serve there. We are much more likely to lose the useful contribution these people can make by talking about the possibility of them being suspect. The Minister must therefore approach the matter positively. He should address himself to the views of the local government associations. He has been fair and explained the result of his discussion with those associations. In his letter dated 23rd May to certain hon. Members, including those on the Standing Committee, he said:
Having regard to the present views of those associations I do not propose to initiate any change in the law on the subject in the


Bill and I should have to resist Amendments seeking to make such a change." He should now tell the local authority associations that it is time they were injected with the wind of change. They of all people should have more sense. They should realise that in the county council elections and the borough council elections apathy exists because of the disenfranchisement of the vast ranges of ability of people who are employed by local authorities.
The loss to local government from these people being unable to stand for election is such that it is the Minister's bounden duty to explain that local government employees are no less and no different from many people in the private sector who have financial and business interests, and no less and no different from hon. Members who have private and other interests and who declare those interests quite freely. It is wrong to impute that disqualification shall rest not on the corruption of people but on the suspicion that they are less capable of declaring an interest than people in other occupations and professions. The integrity and probity of these people are not and cannot be in question.
I am sponsored as an hon. Member by the National Union of Public Employees. I have discussed with various of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), how best to deal with the problem. In Amendment No. 423 we have considered how to allow those people who are not involved in the decision-making process of local Government to stand for election in local government—those people who are not in the advisory position in local authorities, namely, those who are employed in grades and occupations where the pay and conditions as settled by 1st January, 1972, come under the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Services (Manual Workers), the National Joint Council for Workshops for the Blind, the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Services (Building and Civil Engineering) and the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Services (Engineering Craftsmen).

12 midnight.

Can anyone argue that any of those employees would misuse his employee

status as a member of his council? The teachers provide an example of employees being allowed to serve on local authorities. They can be co-opted on to education authorities as part of the education committee, and are nominated by their unions. They have a long record of valuable service, and of not voting on matters in which they are personally involved. They do not have to be requested not to vote. They are the first to state their position, because it is a characteristic of the British people to make their positions known to their colleagues, in accordance with our traditions of government, including local government.

It is not enough for the Minister to say, "We have helped by producing a two-tier system of local government." The teachers working in county boroughs will now be able to serve in the county authority, whether a metropolitan county or a non-metropolitan county. There is a built-in trap which is of interest when we talk about people being placed in a position where they might be suspected of using their influence wrongly. We see in Clause 101 that the county has powers to give agency services to local authorities. A teacher or manual worker in a local authority who was inclined to use his influence wrongly would be able to do so as a result of that Clause, because he would be working in the area where the agency part of the county's work was being carried out. But if a person is inclined to do that he will be found out anyway, and will be tested by his peers. One does not have to be an employee of a local authority to be found wanting in certain practices, but when those practices are found out the nature of a person's position on a local authority is the one which matters and which will be questioned.

Therefore, the Government are unwise to appear to have accepted that the local authorities are not willing to be helpful, that they oppose the suggestion hook, line and sinker. I will not go so far as to say to the Minister that it was light relief for him to have this kind of opposition, but I will say that he accepted that this was an opportunity to develop an argument to get him out of a difficult situation. I believe that the situation is not difficult. In our Amendments to Clause 94 we have provided a declaration of interest to make it quite clear that the


categories we are talking about can be included. Teachers could provide a good deal of service on local authorities, whether county or district.

The Minister has shown a good deal of understanding of the problem. On 10th February in Committee he appeared to leave the door open a little. He would be wise to take note of the views not only of the local authority associations but of the unions and of hon. Members and accept that Parliament must at some point be allowed to decide something in this Bill for itself.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair. He knows how many concessions I have made, including concessions in response to his arguments. To suggest that Parliament is not deciding what is in the Bill is unworthy of him.

Mr George Thomas: Keep that for the Welsh part.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister has every justification for making that point. When an hon. Member infers that all that has happened is not right, he is bound to have made unwittingly a slip of the tongue. Of course I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has made many concessions, and I have paid tribute to him, but will he now note that he cannot be right all the time on this subject? More people than the local authority associations are involved in local government and I ask him to take note of the feelings of the unions, such as NALGO and National Union of the Municipal and General Workers. We are talking about people.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that he has made his point very effectively—indeed, he has made it more than once. My right hon. Friend has given way on a great many important matters and we have many other matters of importance to discuss. We want to try to do it when we are alive and well and on top of our form. I ask the hon. Gentleman to try and confine himself to the subject under discussion as an act of courtesy to the House. I say that with no discourtesy to him.
I have been here six hours—three and a half hours before the hon. Gentleman came in. We have many matters to discuss. If we can keep the tempo quick with that Welsh alacrity that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, we shall get on much better, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to set the tone. I hope he will not take what I am saying amiss, but he has been going on for some time. We realise that when he speaks he speaks for the unions. We should be grateful if he would get on.

Mr. Leadbitter: I understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to keep the business going but I am not responsible for the Government's handling of the business. There is no lack of courtesy from this side of the House. I have been present in the Chamber since three o'clock and the hon. Gentleman has not been here so long.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I was here three hours earlier than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Argument about the time hon. Members have been here will not help us get on.

Mr. Leadbitter: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman's request, while acceptable, should have come from someone else.
Because of the importance of this matter to so many people, and because of the need to inject new blood into local government, I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider. The Bill has yet to go to the other place, so there is plenty of time for him to do so. If he will give an undertaking to give more thought to this aspect we will be quite happy.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I was encouraged by the tone of the Minister's reply, though perhaps not so happy about its content. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman realises the absurdity of the present situation, in which a council can be cluttered with property speculators, local builders, estate agents, and the like, all of whom are getting council contracts even though they may declare an interest in individual cases while the poor old bus driver or teacher cannot serve.
The Minister has divided the line about right. I do not agree with some of my hon. Friends who say that the only


people who should be debarred are chief officers. The Minister said that it is those who work in the town hall who should be debarred, not those working in the schools, on the roads, and so on. That is about right. People in administrative posts in the town hall, even though they may not be chief officers, should not be allowed to serve on the council.
I was not so happy to hear the Minister say that he was not willing to amend the Bill in this respect. I can quite understand that time will be needed, and that it is better to get the Bill right than to rush it, but a certain element of importance and urgency is involved. Very soon we shall have elections for the new county councils, after which there will be no more elections for four years. I therefore urge the Minister to be sure, whether or not by legislation, to act quickly enough for these people to be able to benefit before nomination day for the county council elections. Unless he acts quickly, there will be a four-year gap. It will not be enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we will leave it for further legislation if that legislation comes along too late for these people to stand for election to the new county authority.
I declare an interest. I am a member of the National Union of Teachers, though I am not sponsored by it. I was for 12 years a member of the Southampton City Council, although I was a teacher, because I worked for the Hampshire County Council. Under the Bill the whole of Southampton and Portsmouth will go into the one local authority and, along with many of my colleagues and friends, I shall be debarred from sitting on the new county council. The Minister may say that we can sit on a district council, but the powers of a district council being what they are I do not know who will want to serve on those councils. For me to do so, and for many others, would be a complete waste of time. The Bill will debar all teachers as well as other people in non-metropolitan authorities from serving on the county authority. There is urgency here. We should get this matter settled before the elections.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I should like to emphasise that those of us

who were not on the Committee but who read its proceedings agree that the rule is a little inflexible as it stands, and my right hon. Friend's opening remarks made it apparent that he takes the same view.
On the other hand, I hope that Opposition Members will agree that it is desirable to carry the local authority associations with us, and I am sure that it will be agreed that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association and similar bodies have the best interests of local government at heart, although I am surprised that they have taken such an inflexible attitude. I understand their not wanting the rule to be entirely removed, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to persuade them that it should be amended and relaxed, and I hope that that will be possible fairly soon.

Mr. Lomas: I have often heard the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) speak with conviction, but tonight his was a pathetic performance, and that was because his heart was not in what he was saying. He did not mean what he said.
In a democratic society, those who work for a local authority have the right to represent the people in their community on that authority. There is a case for vertical unionism and the sooner the National Association of Schoolmasters and the NUT get together, the better. No substantial arguments have been advanced against the Amendments by Government supporters. They have simply said that because it has been, so it must be. That does not make sense.
As my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) rightly said, this is a matter in which commonsense must prevail. One would not expect the town clerk or the borough treasurer to be a member of his local authority, but that is no reason for denying the right to the dustman or the clerk, and he or she should have the right to make his or her views known to the community and to represent people in his or her ward.
The kernel of the matter is contained in Amendment No. 423 in the names of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers and the National Union of Public Employees. It says:
employees of local authorities in grades or occupations whose pay and conditions were


primarily determined by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Services (Manual Workers), the National Joint Council for Workshops for the Blind, the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Services (Building and Civil Engineering), or the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Services (Engineering Craftsmen) at 1st January, 1972.
Why should so many people be denied the right to represent others on a local authority? I ask the Government to recognise the force of our arguments and agree that we should not deny individual employees of an authority the right to represent others in his community and to express a view.
Of course commonsense would prevail, because the executive and other top grades would not want to be members of the council while still being town clerk, or treasurer, or whatever it might be. In Huddersfield, for instance, the then borough treasurer became a Conservative candidate the moment he retired and he has been a thorn in the flesh of the borough treasurer ever since, and I do not blame him for that; but he did not want to be on the council until he had retired, and he was entitled to do so.
All I ask the Government to do is to accept the legitimate right of an individual to stand for election. Knowing the commonsense of the British people and knowing that no one in authority would want to usurp a position to which he was not entitled. I urge the right hon. Member to give way.

Mr. Terry Davis: I urge the Government to think again about this. Since so many hon. Gentlemen have declared their interests, perhaps I should say that I have never been employed in local government, I am not sponsored by any trade union and I do not act as a consultant for any organisation concerned with one. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider one of his arguments on the general principle. He said that the reorganisation of local government would be opening up the prospect of service in local government for employees of county boroughs as a result of the two-tier system. He should think again about that argument because it is open to question.
I know some employees of county boroughs who serve in local government because they stand for election and are elected in the county boroughs where they live. It is certainly happening in the West

Midlands where there is at least one employee of the Warley County Borough who serves on the City of Birmingham Council. He would not be able to stand for the new metropolitan county of the West Midlands. Similarly, I know another case of a councillor who is employed as a lecturer by the Worcestershire County Council. He teaches in my constituency. He lives in Worcester and serves on the Worcestershire City Council with great distinction.
It would be a pity if these people are denied the opportunity to continue to serve at the level of local government where they have some experience. I ask the Minister to think about another point. It is not just the employees of county boroughs who would be affected, it is also the employees of district councils. It is clear from the draft proposals of the Boundary Commission designate that we are to have much larger district councils. I am talking about non-metropolitan counties. As things stand, employees of district councils may be living in another district council and are able to stand for election there, and I can think of one or two examples. They will not be able to serve in future, as a result of the reorganisation, as they will probably be living in the area of the larger district council. The Minister may have exaggerated the freedom that he is giving and in practice it may be in the other direction.

Mr. Oakes: May I express the complete dissatisfaction of this side of the House with the Ministers reply to this series of Amendments? In Committee the right hon. Gentleman expressed sympathy for these Amendments, He did more, he spelled out, in one of his famous jokes, the number of people likely to be affected and disqualified from serving on local authorities, which astounded the Committee. We confidently expected, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Government would bring to this House a series of Amendments which, while excluding the town clerk and chief officers and people who would have a crucial influence on policy decisions, would deal with these 2 million people who serve local authorities and are at present disqualified from sitting on those authorities as councillors. The right hon. Gentleman said that these Amendments created anomalies greater than the difficulties they removed. As my hon. Friend


the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) said, no Amendment could spell out the situation clearer than Amendment 423, which goes down to actual organisations in an attempt to help the Government.
It is not the job of an Opposition or of Members of the back benches to spell out Amendments in this way. If the Government believe, as the right hon. Gentleman firmly believes, that these people should not be disqualified from sitting as councillors, it is the Government's job to table Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman made great play over the fact that the main local government associations were against any further representations about their employees.
This is the weakness of the Government's arguments. Since when have the Government listened to local government associations? Have they listened to those associations on the reorganisation of water supplies on which every local authority association is united against them?
The Minister said that if the Government could find the right divisions at a subsequent time, they would endeavour to do so, but not in this Bill. Even the Minister should have regarded the situation as anomalous. He said that the House would not expect him to find answers to this matter by tabling the many provisions which would be needed to meet the situation. But the Government have not hesitated to include in the Amendment Paper no fewer than 33 Amendments on the subject of district auditors, taking away their powers and passing them over to private enterprise. The Government do not appear to mind overloading the Amendment Paper when it comes to party political matters, but they will not do it in answer to reasonable requests on other matters.
I turn to Amendment No. 239 which seeks to widen the disqualification. It will mean not only that a bus driver or bus conductor cannot serve on the passenger transport authority, but that he will be denied the right to be able to serve on the county council. Far from seeking to bring in more people to local government, this will have the effect of excluding more people. I know per-

sonally two people in my authority who subsequently became bus inpectors, but who I knew originally as bus drivers. One is now a senior magistrate and the other serves on the road safety committee in his authority. They are both natural chairmen of committees, but the Government are now to deny them the opportunity of service.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) is a little worried about the width of the Liberal Amendment, Amendment No. 270, but as between that Amendment and what the Government's attitude will mean for some 2½ million people, we would err—if we have to err at all—on the side of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.
We shall face the situation in which the property speculator, estate agent, building contractor or public relations consultant can sit on a local authority, but in which the bus driver or conductor or office cleaner will be barred from so doing.
The real reason has nothing to do with the Minister on this Bill. It has to do with the Secretary of State, and possibly with the Cabinet, since they realise that it is the property speculator, the building contractor, the estate agent and the public relations consultant who will be a member of the Conservative Party, whereas the bus driver and the office cleaner will be a member of the Labour Party. I have no alternative but to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Liberal Amendment.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Pardoe: Very briefly in reply to the debate I would say that this has been an interesting but most unsatisfactory debate because its end product is that the Government agreed with almost everything that has been said from this side, but will take no action on it. I find that a most unsatisfactory situation.
I must say I was delighted to have the support of the Labour Front Bench at the end. It came from the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) seems determined to pick a quarrel with me. I have no intention of picking a quarrel with him, but I would just correct him on one point. He accused me of being ignorant of the statutory education committee. I know, as have other hon. Gentlemen


known, that teachers serve on the statutory education committee. The brief the right hon. Gentleman referred to as a NAS brief was a brief of all three unions on the TUC, including his own NUT. So if that union got it wrong—of course, it did not—it was that body's fault as much as that of the NAS.
The Minister's attitude was most extraordinary. He started by trying to define what it was which stopped local government employees from being members of councils and said that their employment might influence the way they would behave as councillors or might lead them to influence their fellow councillors, but then the Minister admitted that what was at the bottom of his argument was a general principle but nevertheless we might have exceptions. I do not think it is possible to draw the line in that way. I accept the point about chief officers, but I would rather amend the Bill in the very simple way the two Amendments would.
The Minister went on to say it could not be done in this Bill, and that it would take 20 Clauses to do it. Of course it would not. I am not attempting to draft 20 Clauses for this Bill, still less to introduce another Bill. I am trying to deal with the Minister's mammoth Bill and it is only a matter of deleting a paragraph—(a) in subsection (1)—and subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 81, so that it will be a somewhat shorter Bill, and that, I would have thought, would have delighted the Minister. It is no good his saying that this is not the Bill to do it. This is a Bill to reform local government. It leaves out the most vital aspect of local government reform, namely, the reform of local finance. It is also leaving out some 2 million people who might sit on local councils.
How the Minister thinks there will be time for another Bill from the Government I cannot imagine. The Government cannot manage their present parliamentary timetable, and I cannot see when they can introduce a new Bill. I must entirely reject that point the Minister made.
I like the way he agreed with us, but I would better like some action.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided—

The Tellers came to the Table and announced: Ayes 79, Noes 20.

Division No. 296.]
AYES
[11.03 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Dalyell, Tam
Hardy, Peter


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davidson, Arthur
Harper, Joseph


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davies, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Ashton, Joe
Deakins, Eric
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Atkinson, Norman
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hattersley, Roy


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Heffer, Eric S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Horam, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Booth, Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Evans, Fred
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Chapman, Sydney
Garrett, W. E.
Judd, Frank


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Kaufman, Gerald


Concannon, J. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Kerr, Russell


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Kinnock, Neil


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hamling, William
Lamborn, Harry


Cronin, Johnx
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Lamond, James




Latham, Arthur
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Silverman, Julius


Leadbitter, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skinner, Dennis


Leonard, Dick
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oakes, Gordon
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Halloran, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lipton, Marcus
O'Malley, Brian
Swain, Thomas


Lomas, Kenneth
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tinn, James


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pardoe, John
Torney, Tom


McCartney, Hugh
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tuck, Raphael


McElhone, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Varley, Eric G.


Mackie, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wainwright, Edwin


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wallace, George


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Watkins, David


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wellbeloved, James


Marsden, F.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Woof, Robert


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Roper, John



Meacher, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Mikardo, Ian
Short,Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr John Golding.


Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hiley, Joseph
Raison, Timothy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Astor, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Redmond, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Hordern, Peter
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biffen, John
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boscawen, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott, Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bowden, Andrew
Jessel, Toby
Sharples, Richard


Bray, Ronald
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Kershaw, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Bryan, Paul
Kinsey, J. R.
Soref, Harold


Carlisle, Mark
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Knox, David
Spence, John


Cockeram, Eric
Lamont, Norman
Sproat, Iain


Cooke, Robert
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Crouch, David
Longden, Gilbert
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Loveridge, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Dixon, Piers
Luce, R. N.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Tebbit, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Mather, Carol
Temple, John M.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maude, Angus
Trew, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fortescue, Tim
Moate, Roger
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fowler, Norman
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Waddington, David


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Murton, Oscar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey
Wiggin, Jerry


Green, Alan
Normanton, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gummer, Selwyn
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Parkinson, Cecil



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Havers, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Victor Goodhew

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The Ayes have it.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether the figures were announced the right way round.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Division off. Fresh Division.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, it is within the recollection of the House that already in this Session when an hon. Member has queried whether a decision you have given could be subjected to a further ruling by yourself you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this was not possible. You will recall that you apologised to the House for not calling an hon. Member, but you said that as you had in fact taken a decision it was impossible to go back on it. Does not the same argument now apply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It seems to me that there has been a mistake, either by the Tellers or by the Table, or by someone, and that the correct result has not been achieved. I think that the right way to decide this finally is to have the Division again, and then we shall get the right result.

Mr. George Thomas: With every respect to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and whilst I was perfectly content with the figures you gave to the House and the victory to the Opposition side of the House, it is quite simply that the figures go the other way about; that is all.

Mr. Walter Harrison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the result of the Division has been declared in a certain manner, surely we must take it, by the Tellers, that that Division is carried. As the decision was declared by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we must contest what you are now suggesting. I should like to hear your attitude on this decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This ought to be a matter of common sense for the House. It is obvious—I think that the House would agree—that a mistake has been made. I think that the Opposition


should bear that in mind and not try to seek, through a mistake, a result which they and the House know is not the result which the House intended.
I am not casting any aspersions on any hon. Member of the Opposition. Any hon. Member of the Opposition is entitled to say anything he likes about a result like this. But if hon. Members of the Opposition ask my advice about the right and fair thing, I think that it is to admit that there has been a mistake and to accept a reversal of the figures or, if they so wish, I am prepared to put the question for Division again.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this not one of the many mistakes which the country has had to live with under this Tory Government and, in that case, should we not have to accept it as we have had to accept the others?

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know what the hon. Member is driving at. Notwithstanding that, however, I hope that the House will do what seems to me to be the obvious thing to do.

Mr. Pardoe: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, may I say that it is splendid to have a Liberal Amendment carried. It contained so much common sense that obviously the House was swayed by the arguments, and I am not surprised. With the fact recorded that we won the Amendment, I should have thought that the common sense thing would be to reverse the figures as you have suggested.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before any other hon. Member says anything, may I say that I am in entire agreement with the mover of the Amendment.

Mr. Oakes: Further to the point of order. Has not a serious matter arisen, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It was not merely your mistake in the announcement you made of the decision. As I understand it, Tellers appointed by the House announced the figures from the end of the Table to the House and to you, and you repeated that decision. Then an hon. Gentleman, albeit a Minister, raised a point of order that the figures were incorrect. As a matter of precedent, if we appoint Tellers, when the Tellers come back can we have points of order as to

whether the figures they give are correct? We have always to be aware of the sort of precedents we set in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I quite agree with that, but I think that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has the right answer. A simple human error has been made and I would expect the House, as the honourable House it is, to accept that and to reverse the figures.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no interest in this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I did not vote in the Division—I deliberately abstained—but you will recall that earlier in today's proceedings I rose to a point of order immediately after your declaration of the result of an Amendment and stated that you had declared an Amendment carried when two hon. Members had been waiting to speak. You said at the time that you regretted this and that a mistake had been made but that because you had declared the result you could not go back on it. It seems illogical now, when another mistake has been made, that we can go back on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not certain that I follow what the hon. Member means. Does he mean that by my saying that the Division was off I made a different ruling?

Mr. Mitchell: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that in your earlier ruling you stated that because you had declared the Amendment carried, we could not go back on it and allow an hon. Friend of mine and myself to speak. On this occasion you had declared the Amendment carried but you now wish to go back on it. This is an illogicality.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the earlier occasion, however, I behaved in the way the Chair normally behaves. I had not actually seen the hon. Member rise to speak and, therefore, I had declared the result. I am sorry I did not see him to call him and hoped that I had explained this to his satisfaction. Now, however, the position is rather different. It is not a question of a Member being able to make a contribution to the debate. It is rather a question of serious error being made through human frailty, as it were. I sincerely hope that the House will agree to reverse the figures.

Mr. John Silkin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has had its fun, I think rightly, but "Erskine May" probably gives the answer at page 391:
Where an error in the numbers has been discovered before the end of a sitting"—
which is the case here—
the tellers being agreed thereon have come to the table and stated the corrected numbers

Division No. 297.]
AYES
[12.33 a.m.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Concannon, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lomas, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Deakins, Eric
McElhone, Frank
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon



Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Roper, John
and Mr. John Golding


NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Scott, Nicholas


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Biffen, John
Hunt, John
Sharples, Richard


Boscawen, Robert
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bowden, Andrew
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Bray, Ronald
Kershaw, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Kinsey, J. R.
Soref, Harold


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Knox, David
Spence, John


Carlisle, Mark
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chapman, Sydney
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Clegg, Walter
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Cockeram, Eric
Maddan, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


Crouch, David
Marten, Neil
Trew, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fidler, Michael
Moate, Roger
Waddington, David


Fortescue, Tim
Morrison, Charles
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman
Murton, Oscar
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Gibson-Watt, David
Normanton, Tom
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Goodhew, Victor
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Weatherill, Bernard


Gower, Raymond
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


Green, Alan
Raison, Timothy



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Redmond, Robert



Gummer, Selwyn
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Hugh Rossi and Mr. Marcus Fox


Hicks, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 86

VACATION OF OFFICE BY FAILURE TO ATTEND MEETINGS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 309, in page 55, line 28, after 'authority' insert:
'before the expiry of that period'.
The Amendment has been tabled following an Amendment tabled and argued in Committee by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising the matter. Where a councillor fails to attend a meeting of an authority

and the Speaker has reported the numbers accordingly."

I suggest, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we follow that precedent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that we go through the form again and have the Tellers at the Table.

The Tellers came again to the Table and announced: Ayes 20, Noes 79.

throughout a period of six consecutive months, unless the failure to attend was due to a reason approved by the council, he ceases to be a member of the council. The effect of the Amendment will be to require that the council's approval of the reason for failure to attend is given before the expiry of the six-months period.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 87

DECLARATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITY OF VACANCY IN OFFICE IN CERTAIN CASES

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 281, in page 56, line 16.


leave out from 'vacant' to end of line 18.
With this Amendment it will be convenient, if the House will agree, to take Government Amendment No. 558.
These Amendments are designed to ensure that public notice is given of every casual vacancy, no matter how it occurs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) for raising this matter in Committee. The tabling of these Amendments has implemented the undertaking which I gave at that time.
At present public notice of only some casual vacancies is required. This is particularly unfortunate in the case of parishes or community councils, because not all casual vacancies have to be filled by the local electorate. Some may be filled by the council itself, so it is all the more important that there should be a public notice.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome the fact that the Government have tabled these Amendments to meet points which were raised by both sides in Committee. However, these Government Amendments seem to use many more words to express the same point.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 88

DATE OF CASUAL VACANCIES

Amendment made: No. 558, in page 57, line 8, at end add—

(2) Public notice of a casual vacancy in any such office as is referred to in subsection (1) above shall be given by the local authority in which the office exists; and the steps required to be taken to give public notice in accordance with section 225 below shall be taken—
(a) in a case where the local authority declare the office to be vacant, immediately after the declaration; and
(b) in any other case, as soon as practicable after the date on which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, the vacancy is deemed to have occurred.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 90

FILLING OF CASUAL VACANCIES IN CASE OF COUNCILLORS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 241, in page 57, line 28, leave out "thirty" and insert "forty-two".

I respectfully suggest that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 242 and 243.
The effect of these three Amendments is to increase from 30 days to 42 days the period within which an election shall be held to fill a casual vacancy for a council or district councillor.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 242, in page 57, line 30, leave out "thirty" and insert "forty-two".

No. 243, in page 57, line 34, leave out "thirty" and insert "forty-two".

No. 931, in page 58, line 9, after "district", insert:
 "in which councillors are elected by thirds".

No. 932, in page 58, line 18, leave out "a" and insert "any such".

No. 514, in page 59, line 2, leave out from "filled" to end of line 4 and insert:
by election or by the parish or community council in accordance with rules made under section 44 above".—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 244, in page 59, line 6, leave out from first "lot" to end of line 9 and insert:
(a) in the case of a contested election, the lot shall be drawn by the returning officer immediately after the question has arisen; and
(b) in any other case, the lot shall be drawn at the next meeting of the council after the question has arisen, and the drawing shall be conducted under the direction of the person presiding at the meeting.
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that where there is a contested election which has to be determined by lot, that lot may be drawn by the returning office immediately after the election rather than waiting for the next council meeting.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 93

MITIGATION OF CORPORATION TAX LIABILITY OF SMALL COMPANIES

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to bove Amendment No. 768, in page 60, line 38, leave out subsection (1).
I shall move this Amendment briefly because I have high hopes that the Government will accept it.
I understand that if this subsection had been allowed to stand, there would be certain cases in which all county council members might well be disqualified from voting—a situation which I am sure none of us would wish to arise—but I should be glad to hear what view the Government take about certain consequential changes which may be needed in other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: I am not sure to which other Amendments the hon. Gentleman referred, but I will consult him later.
This seems a perfectly simple point and I am very happy to accept the Amendment. The present law seems to be about as sensible as telling hon. Members of this House that only Northern Ireland Members can vote on Northern Irish matters or that only Scottish Members can vote on Scottish matters. The rule as it stands is that when there is a special charge on a part of a district, only those councillors who represent that part of the district can vote. Surely councillors are elected as members of the council, and they should take part in all council affairs unless they are precluded by some personal reason.
Therefore, I hope the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 12

MEETINGS AND PROCEEDINGS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Amendments made:

No. 576, in page 241, line 18 after 'council', insert:
'and other business brought before that meeting as a matter of urgency in accordance with the council's standing orders'.

No. 904, in page 241, line 31 after 'if', insert:
'at that time he remains a councillor or an alderman and is'.

No. 560, in page 243, line 4 at beginning insert—
(1) Unless otherwise provided by the council's standing orders.

No. 561, in page 243, line 5 leave out 'and' and insert '(2)'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 562, in page 243, line 12, leave out 'April' and insert 'June'.
I think this Amendment needs some explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) move an Amendment in Committee which aimed to shift the annual parish meeting to the autumn. According to the Bill, it has to be held in March. To postpone it to the autumn would put it out of phase with the parish council. If it were accepted that it could be held before June, as the Amendment provides, I think it would meet the case.

Amendment agreed to.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1000, in page 244, line 2, leave out from 'council' to end of line 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take at the same time the following three Amendments:

No. 1001, in Schedule 13, page 252, line 30, at end insert:

'Parish Councils Act 1957

5. After subsection (1) of section 3 of the Parish Councils Act 1957 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) Where the council of a parish or community or a parish meeting exercise the powers, conferred on them by subsection (1) above in part only of the parish or community, then, notwithstanding anything in section 149 of the Local Government Act 1972, the parish or community council or parish meeting may by resolution declare the expenses incurred under this section to be chargeable only on such part of their area as may be specified in the resolution, and any such resolution may be varied or revoked by a subsequent resolution of the council or meeting, as the case may be".

No. 1002, in Schedule 14, page 260, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert:
'34. In section 3(1) of the Parish Councils Act 1957, for the words from the beginning to the word "council", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "The council of a parish or community or, in the case of a parish for which there is no parish council" and for the words "in that part of the parish, as the case may be" there shall be substituted the words "community, or in any part thereof".

No. 1003, in Schedule 30, page 351, line 56, column 3, leave out '(4), (5)' and insert '(2) to (6)'.

Mr. Page: These Amendments will enable a parish or community council, or


a parish meeting to exercise street lighting powers in the whole or part of the parish or community area without the need for any consent or formal provision for adoption. If they exercise the powers in part only of their area, they may charge the cost to that part.
This will simplify the procedure for a parish to exercise its right to provide not highway lighting but rather footpath lighting which is in the power of certain parishes.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 563, in page 247, line 21, at beginning insert:
(1) Unless otherwise provided by the council's standing orders.

No. 564, in page 247, line 22, leave out 'and' and insert '(2)'.

No. 559, in page 250, line 10, at beginning insert 'Subject to those provisions'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 100

ADMISSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS TO LOCAL AUTHORITY MEETINGS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 778, in page 64, line 13, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 14 and insert:
(1) For the purpose of securing the admission, so far as practicable, of

I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we might conveniently discuss at the same time Amendment No. 779, in page 64, line 14, leave out from 'all' to end of line 15 and insert:

meetings of committees of local authorities as well as to meetings of local authorities themselves, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (in this section referred to as "the 1960 Act") shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this section.

(2) Without prejudice to section 2(1) of the 1960 Act (application of section 1 of that Act to any committee of a body whose membership consists of or includes all members of that body) section 1 of the 1960 Act shall apply, subject to subsection (3) below, to any committee appointed by one or more local authorities under section 102 below, not being a committee falling within section 2(1) of the 1960 Act.

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of section 1 of the 1960 Act (power of body by resolution to exclude public from particular meetings) the local authority or authorities who appointed a committee to which that section applies by virtue of subsection (2) above may, by resolution, exclude the public

from meetings of the committee during such period, ending not later than twelve months after the resolution is passed, as may be specified in the resolution, if they are of the opinion that, with respect to much the greater part of the business likely to be transacted at meetings of the committee, publicity for the meetings would be prejudicial to the public interest—
(a) by reason of the confidential nature of the business, or
(b) for other special reasons stated in the resolution and arising from the nature of the business or of the proceedings at which the business will be transacted;
and where such a resolution is passed, the 1960 Act shall not require meetings of the committee to be open to the public during the period specified in the resolution.

(4) Subsection (3) of section 1 of the 1960 Act (need to receive or consider recommendations from outside sources a special reason for excluding the public) shall apply in relation to subsection (2) above as it applies in relation to subsection (2) of that section.

(5) Where section 1 of the 1960 Act applies to a committee by virtue of subsection (2) above, then, for the purposes of subsection (4)(c) of that section, premises belonging to the local authority or one or more of the local authorities which appointed the committee shall be treated as belonging to the committee'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, and also, I suggest, the following:

No. 272, in page 64, line 13, leave out 'unless otherwise decided by a majority vote'.

No. 245, in page 64, line 14, after 'vote', insert 'at that meeting'.

No. 516, in page 64, line 15, at end insert—
Provided that it will suffice for the purposes of this section that such a decision is made yearly by the Council at its annual meeting in respect of its committees or, alternatively, by such committees themselves (in the absence of a decision by the Council at its annual meeting) at the first meeting of any committee following the annual meeting of the Council.

Mr. Page: At present, I am moving No. 778, an important Amendment, and perhaps I shall discover what the rest are a little later.
Amendments Nos. 778 and 779 substantially rewrite Clause 100 in the form of an extension of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act, 1960, so as to include all committee meetings of local authorities. At the end of the 51 or 52 sittings of the Committee, I was pleased to be able to advise the Committee to accept a new Clause, which now appears as Clause 100, and it was accepted as an earnest of our belief in the principle of


more open government. I explained at the time that the new Clause was not quite adequate for the purpose and would need considerable amendment.
Looking at the matter between the Committee stage and now, we discovered that the best way to deal with it is to extend the 1960 Act. The House will recall that under the 1960 Act local authorities are obliged to admit the public to full council meetings, to committees of the full council and to education committees. It seemed a fairly simple way to deal with what was intended by the Clause accepted in Committee to apply those provisions of the 1960 Act to all committees.
Thus, if the council wishes to preclude the public from any committee of the council, it must pass a resolution to do so and that resolution must be backed by the provisions of the 1960 Act. The House will not, I think, wish me to go into great detail, since it is only an extension of existing law to all the committees of the council. I believe that this meets what the Standing Committee wished, namely, that we should make provision for the committees of councils to be open to the public unless there is good reason for keeping the public out, the same sort of reason as would apply to resolutions to be made in the case of the full council, committees of the full council or the education committee.
One alteration that we have made is to provide that if the council wishes to pass a resolution keeping the public out of committees of the council, it can pass a resolution which will apply for 12 months. That is reasonable because if a committee is announced as taking place and the public believe they can attend, and a resolution is then passed at the commencement of the meeting excluding the public, it will be a source of frustration and annoyance.
It would be better if the council made it clear from which committees it thought it right to exclude the public. The 12-months resolution will be useful in this case.

Mr. John Silkin: When the Minister extends the provision for entry of the Press and the public to all committees we are grateful to him for meeting the point. We understood at the time that he accepted our arguments and we there-

fore removed the old Clause 100 and the "freedom of the Press" Clause became the new Clause 100. We realised that there would have to be an Amendment.
The second part of the Minister's remarks concerns us, as it should concern the whole House. That is why in a few moments I shall be advising hon. Members to divide the House and why I shall hope that what is not a party point will attract the support of Conservative hon. Members as well as most, if not all, hon. Members on the Opposition benches.
The reason is that the Minister says that it is right that there should be a 12-month period during which a committee may bar the public or the Press. As he said it—and I hope I am not doing him an injustice—I thought he was questioning his own mind and questioning the words. It sounds to me like something that has been wished upon the Minister which he himself does not want. In Committee he bravely and, I suspect, against a certain degree of opinion that had flowed into him for weeks past, stood out for the enry of the Press and the public into the council deliberations. But, of course, to say that a council or a committee may pass a resolution for 12 months is to make the whole thing nugatory.
Amendment No. 245 seeks to provide that the public or the Press may be barred from attending any meeting. The point is that it still gives the council or the committee the right by a simple majority to exclude the Press if it wishes. It must, of course, be for a very serious reason should it wish to do so. Those of us who have served on local authorities know that there are times when the public and the Press must be excluded. Those are occasions when purely domestic matters are under discussion—the interviewing of staff is an obvious example. No one wants to make it obligatory to have the Press and the public in on all occasions like that.
We do not want to be unreasonable but is it so unreasonable to provide that if a council wants to bar the Press and the public it must do so meeting by meeting? As I have often said—and I hope that most hon. Members present were not on the Committee because then they will not be so bored as hon. Members who were if I repeat it—the parallel is with the House of Commons. If I were to


spy strangers tonight, there would be a Division, and if my Motion were passed the Galleries would be cleared for this Sitting. We have the best precedent of all. We do not do it for 12 months in advance. My noble Friend, Lord Wigg, used this means of enlivening the House when he felt that it was becoming a little dull.
I hope the Minister will think again. He knows in his heart that what I am saying is absolutely right. I accept that there are pressures on him, but if he is willing to say that he will genuinely consider the matter again between now and the Bill's going to another place, I will not press a Division. Obviously, if I were to press a Division on pure party lines I would, judging by the last correct figures, be horribly beaten, and I have no desire to be horribly beaten. But I think there are enough hon. Members on both sides who feel strongly enough about the right of the Press and the public to be present at council and committee meetings to back me on this. If the Minister says, "I will have another look at this. I have already had two looks, but there is no harm in having a third", I shall be prepared not to oppose the Amendment. But if he uncharacteristically remains intractable, I shall have to press the matter to a Division.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have been particularly interested in the Amendment, and I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify one or two points before it is put and perhaps the House divides. In the main, I welcome the attendance of the Press at council meetings, but I wish to raise two points of administration.
First, where does my right hon. Friend intend that the Press and public should be put in many council committee rooms? Unless the central Government advance vast sums to local government, or committee meetings are to be held in the council chamber, I believe we shall have a number of redundant committee rooms.
Secondly, very often, certainly on the authority on which I have the privilege to serve, many members find it inhibiting to participate in debate in the full council chamber and make a much more positive contribution in committee in a smaller room. I hope that in admitting the Press to committee meetings and other

council activities we shall not prevent those who find it difficult to participate in a larger arena from making useful contributions to council debates in the more intimate atmosphere of a council committee room.
These two points are of academic and administrative interest.

Mr. Graham Page: I should have thought that anyone with a positive contribution to make in committee would be only too pleased to have the Press there to hear it. That is what we want to encourage. If it means that councillors must meet in another committee room or that committees must always meet in the council chamber to accommodate the Press, that must be done. It is worth it for the purpose that is the basis of the Amendment.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) asked me to think again. I would ask him to think again this time. He frequently asks me to think again, and frequently I have given way to him. Perhaps he will give way to me this time. It is only on very restricted occasions that the 12-months resolution can be passed, if publicity of the business which is transacted at the meeting is likely to be prejudicial to the public interest, and prejudicial
…by reason of the confidential nature of the business…
That could apply, of course, to various committees in which confidential business take place—for example, the housing committee, which considers individual cases. The 1960 Act goes on:
…or for other special reasons stated in the resolution and arising from the nature of the business or of the proceedings…
Those are the grounds stated in the 1960 Act. It is not easy to pass a resolution unless the council can be satisfied with the case. From the point of view of convenience, a council will be able to say, "This is the type of committee which deals with confidential matters or receive confidential advice" and to decide that for the ensuing year the public will not be admitted. I think there is a sufficient restriction to make it reasonable to have a 12-months resolution by the council.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I have thought again and I come back to the same thoughts I


had a few minutes ago. I find the Minister's attitude extraordinary. During the six years of World War II, the House went into secret session from time to time but the rest of time, although there was excuses enough to do otherwise, held its debates in public. I do not believe that a council needs to go into secret session on every single occasion in a 12-months period, and the same applies to its committees. We are talking about a special occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman has been for once weakened—I do not know by whom—and I think it a great shame because he, like myself, is in favour of the freedom of the Press and wants open council meetings, as I do. He knows perfectly well that one of the difficulties we face is that there are reactionary, hide-bound councils which simply do not want to let the Press in and that they will use this provision as a splendid excuse.

Mr. Page: How long would the right hon. Gentleman expect a resolution of this sort to operate? Would it be merely for one meeting of one committee and only for one meeting? That would not meet the case, for example, of the housing committee, which deals with individual cases throughout the year. Would he expect the council on every occasion to pass a resolution in respect of each committee meeting from which it wished to exclude the public?

Mr. Silkin: Our Amendment says, "at that meeting", which means meeting by meeting. To permit a council to say at the beginning of the year that a certain committee is so confidential that it should be left confidential throughout the year is extraordinary. Putting a resolution at every meeting would give Press and public advance notice of what was to be done. The point of the exercise of putting a resolution at each meeting is that one needs then to justify it. Unfortunately, the burden is otherwise in the Government's Amendment. It enables the hidebound council to say, "We do not like admitting the Press and the public."
I have met councillors, not necessarily members of the Conservative Party but sometimes of my own party, who do not like the Press around and who think that they get on much better without members of the Press and the public being present.

These are the enemies of local democracy. There does not seem to be very much difficulty in saying at each meeting, "As we announced as our policy earlier in the year, we are putting this resolution to the meeting."

Mr. Page: The right hon. Gentleman is putting forward a specific proposition now, and if it will save him from ignominious defeat in the Lobbies I will certainly undertake to think about the specific proposition he put to me.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I recall so well the occasion in Committee when my right hon. Friend made this proposition about the admission of the Press to all meetings of local authorities, and the stir it caused both there and outside, particularly in the journalistic world and in local government circles. Many of those who commented on it were initially quite critical of my right hon. Friend, but when they looked into the practical application implied by the Clause, when they looked at the possibility of the admission of the Press to committee meetings, and when they realised that in those committees might be considered private matters and business matters which ought not to be public knowledge, they appreciated that it was perfectly practicable to include the Press in specific circumstances.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend has made extensive inquiries and must have found that many authorities were thinking about admission of the Press and were stimulated by the Clause into moving much more quickly than might otherwise have been the case. It would be interesting on another occasion to know of the difficulties which councils have found. In my experience, a number of councils have accommodated the Press at no great inconvenience to themselves, and have come to satisfactory arrangements with the local Press and, through the local Press organisations, with journalists whose job it is to attend committee meetings.
To require a 12-months period is to go back on many of the advantages which were made very clear to us in Committee. A start has been made on something that has received general approval, and I can not see any significant grounds for back tracking, leading to the suggestion that we now need a 12-months period—

Mr. Graham Page: It is not requiring a period of 12 months. This is permissive. A council can make the resolution for a 12-months period or it can do so for only one meeting.

Mr. Jones: Perhaps I did not choose my words as carefully as I might, but the spirit of what I say is clear, and I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend tell the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) that he would look at the matter again.

Mr. Denis Howell: We are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look at the question again. The situation could otherwise have been quite ludicrous. A council might pass a blanket resolution covering a period of 12 months, during which time a matter of major public policy could arise which should be debated in the presence of the Press but for which debate the Press could not be admitted. That would be ludicrous. I think that I carry Government supporters with me when I say that this is not a party political issue. Both sides know of councils of different political complexions which are tremendously stubborn and undemocratic in their approach to this problem—both Conservative and Socialist-controlled councils. However, we shall be satisfied if the right hon. Friend will agree to look at the matter again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 779, in page 64, line 14, leave out from 'all' to end of line 15 and insert:

'meetings of committees of local authorities as well as to meetings of local authorities themselves, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (in this section referred to as "the 1960 Act") shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this section.

(2) Without prejudice to section 2(1) of the 1960 Act (application of section 1 of that Act to any committee of a body whose membership consists of or includes all members of fiat body) section 1 of the 1960 Act shall apply, subject to subsection (3) below, to any committee appointed by one or more local authorities under section 102 below, not being a committee falling within section 2(1) of the 1960 Act.

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of section 1 of the 1960 Act (power of body by resolution to exclude public from particular meetings) the local authority or authorities who appointed a committee to which that section applies by virtue of subsection (2) above may, by resolution, exclude the public from meetings of the committee during such period, ending

not later than twelve months after the resolution is passed, as may be specified in the resolution, if they are of the opinion that, with respect to much the greater part of the business likely to be transacted at meetings of the committee, publicity for the meetings would be prejudicial to the public interest—
(a) by reason of the confidential nature of the business, or
(b) for other special reasons stated in the resolution and arising from the nature of the business or of the proceedings at which the business will be transacted;
and where such a resolution is passed, the 1960 Act shall not require meetings of the committee to be open to the public during the period specified in the resolution.

(4) Subsection (3) of section 1 of the 1960 Act (need to receive or consider recommendations from outside sources a special reason for excluding the public) shall apply in relation to subsection (2)above as it applies in relation to subsection (2) of that section.

(5) Where section 1 of the 1960 Act applies to a committee by virtue of subsection (2) above, then, for the purposes of subsection (4)(c) of that section, premises belonging to the local authority or one or more of the local authorities which appointed the committee shall be treated as belonging to the committee'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 101

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Sir Tatton Brinton: I beg to move Amendment No. 246, in page 64, line 19, after 'may', insert:
'and if directed by the Secretary of State, shall'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment we are to take Amendment No. 306, in page 66, line 25, at end insert:
(14) In any case where a district council contains within its boundaries the whole of the area of any borough, urban district, or rural district which immediately prior to 1st April 1974 discharged functions allocated by this Act to county councils, it shall be competent for that district council to request the council of the county in which it is situate to make arrangements under this section with the district council for the discharge of all or any of those functions by the district council, and in the event of the county council refusing such a request or offering to make arrangements unsatisfactory to the district council, that council may appeal to the Secretary of State who, if satisfied that the request is reasonable and that the district council has adequate staff and resources to enable it to discharge the said functions in an efficient manner, may direct the county council to comply with the request in such manner as he may think fit.
(15) Any such request as is mentioned in subsection (14) above may be made before 1st April, 1974 or thereafter.

Sir T. Brinton: I should like to express my thanks to Kidderminster Borough Council, the town clerk, Mr. John Evans, who is to retire shortly after 25 years' service for his help and advice and to his designated successor, Mr. Norman James, for drafting these Amendments. If the Minister is prepared to accept the Amendments or something on these lines, many districts will have cause to be thankful to both gentlemen.
The object of the Amendments is to provide a means of appeal by districts which might feel that they have been unfairly dealt with by county councils under the new arrangements for agencies for carrying out certain functions which are within the powers of the county councils but not of the district councils. The Government's attitude towards the agency powers envisaged in the Clause were made clear by both the then Under-secretary for the Environment and the Minister for Local Government and Development in Committee. The then Under-Secretary said:
I do not at all wish to suggest that the implementation of the arguments which are being put forward leave no rôle for the districts.
This was during discussion on transportation and parking. He went on:
In my judgment, it leaves a very real rôle for the districts through the working of our agency provisions under Clause 100…we should certainly see it as one of our principal purposes to study the oportunities for the districts to play a real part. Certainly, there are many districts which are very well able to do so and it would be a great shame if they did not continue to do so. It would be our purpose in administering the framework which we have, and as we see it evolving, that the districts, where they are capable of doing so, should play a very real part".
He made clear the Government's intention that the agency provisions should be used and developed as fully as possible.
The Minister defined the Government's concept of agency arrangements and made it clear that he was not talking about delegation. He said:
…we have cast aside the idea of delegation…there should be arrangements under Clause 100 between the different kinds of local authorities for the carrying out of each other's functions".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 29th February, 1972; c. 2020–94.]

1.30 a.m.

This made it clear we are not talking about delegation but something rather less than that. Subsection (5) makes it clear that the financial power will still remain with the senior authority. In those circumstances one must admit that the districts are, even under the Clause as it stands, not being offered anything very concrete and certainly nothing comparable to the full granting of powers which have been asked for in Committee under various headings, and which will no doubt be the subject of further Amendments.

Mr. Maddan: As I understand it the Clause allows agency arrangements to be made by counties and districts and also by districts with counties. Would my hon. Friend explain that he wishes his Amendment to apply to both circumstances?

Sir T. Brinton: I have not envisaged that it would be necessary to protect county councils against the district councils by providing them with a right of appeal, since in general districts would only be likely to ask the county councils to act for them where they were incapable of acting themselves, whereas there are many cases, and this is my principal point, where there will be powerful districts which contain within their borders former authorities which exercised very wide powers indeed, right up to those of a county borough and which will in future under the Clause be entirely under the power of the county council, which will have the right to decide what powers they shall exercise. I do not find this satisfactory.
The Government obviously did not find it satisfactory either because when they were tackled under various heads of discussion in Committee they constantly had recourse to Clause 101 as it now is, as an excuse for not granting any broadcast powers. I can see their point to some extent. If it is said that all districts may be library authorities, for example, we are potentially bestowing that power on some districts which do not wish to exercise it and are incapable of doing so. The Government have provided for differential scales of function by districts through the Clause but in doing so they have left the decision in the hands of the county councils, one of the two interested parties in any such arrangement. The county council attitude is unknown.


It must be a matter for questioning for any district council as to what view its relevant county council will take on the division of powers.
It may be that those hon. Members who have read the county councils' circular have drawn from it the conclusion, which I did, that the tendency was to ask the Government to cut down the powers given to district councils rather than to expand them. Districts fear that if the decision is left solely to the county councils then agency arrangements will be at the minimum level rather than the maximum. This is the real fear and it is not unjustified. Who should decide how far the agency arrangements are going? I submit that it should not be the county councils. They are a party to the agreement, they are half of the bargain. If any dispute arises are we to allow one side of the argument to have a power of decision, rather like cunning old Fury in "Alice in Wonderland"? There must be some court of appeal.
The Government have suggested that it will be sufficient merely to provide guidance about how agency agreements should work. It is necessary that some guidance should be provided, but supposing it is not sufficient. What will happen if a big and powerful new district finds itself deprived of powers which have been exercised by its constituent parts for many years and is unable to persuade an obstinate county council that it is capable of continuing to exercise them? It must then be up to the Secretary of State to settle the issue.
It may be argued that this would entail an enormous volume of work, and I accept that this work must be undertaken very urgently. If it is not settled immediately, the skilled and professional staff will go off in search of fresh fields and the districts will no longer be capable of carrying the extended powers.
This is a burden which will have to be shouldered only once by the Minister because once the pattern is fixed it is likely to endure. If the Minister cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, I hope he will at least accept the principle that he will act as arbiter. Unless there is some prospect of the exercise of real powers, there is bound to be a feeling of frustration at district level that they are

being pushed down to a position of relative unimportance. I believe that the districts deserve and want reassurance and I ask the Secretary of State to give it to them.

Mr. Oakes: We on this side of the House support Amendment No. 246. For a limited period of time the Secretary of State should have some say in holding the balance between the district council and the county council. More is involved than the mere powers of the authority and the pride of the authority. Jobs may well be involved and the Bill will create a major disruption for many local government employees during the transition period. They cannot just up roots and go to another job. It would surely be sensible for them to remain in their present jobs, at least for a limited time, as agents for the new authority.
The classic situation is that between Plymouth and Devon authorities. It would be monstrous if Devon County Council exercised in Exeter the functions of a county council but denied Plymouth functions under Clause 101. It would be a monstrous decision, but, if that council were to make it, under the present Clause 101 this House and the Minister could do little or nothing about it.
What this Amendment seeks to do is to give power to the Minister to hold the ring, to hold the balance, and to be able—I repeat, for a limited period, and we on this side would accept that this could not be a permanent arrangement, for that would go against the root of the Bill and we would not expect the Government to accept that—to say to the county council "These are functions for which you shall make agency arrangements with the district council"—whichever is concerned.
We on this side of the House fully support the hon. Member for Kidderminster in this excellent Amendment.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order. This Amendment No. 246 would appear to be meaningless unless it is taken in conjunction with Amendment 306.

Hon. Members: It is taken with it.

Mr. Tuck: It is? I beg the pardon of the House.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): Let me say


first of all that right the way through with this reorganisation Bill we have expressed two basic principles, first, that we consider it will be in the interests of local government to organise sensible agency agreements, and I must confess, with regard to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan), that I think there is scope for agency agreements in both directions and not necessarily in just one direction. Therefore, any Amendment or change should take account of that factor.
Also, secondly, we have tried to impress that whatever one's views of local government reform itself, if one is to have the two levels in local government, then from the time this commences they should work together in a spirit of cooperation, not of hostility and rivalry. I am very anxious to see—and it was one of the reasons we wanted to see each function with one set of authorities or the other—that we avoid the sort of hostility which, I think, has done damage to local government in the past.
I am well aware of the sentiments and feelings expressed lucidly by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) on this topic. Therefore, I have given careful consideration to this, and I believe that there is scope for doing something in the nature of arbitration for a limited period. I do not want to enter the situation where constantly in local government there is a potential threat by any authority in local government, "We will take this to the Secretary of State and appeal that this function or that should operate on an agency agreement."
Therefore, what I should like to suggest to the House is that, firstly, the two Amendments go rather wider than my hon. Friend presently envisages. For example, they cover the position of London boroughs and the GLC—not basically a matter for reform by this Bill—and would create uncertainties in those particular spheres. They would also create a system which would not require proper consultation. These are weaknesses in detail of the Amendments.
I know that what my hon. Friend is concerned with is the spirit of the Amendments. Therefore, I should like to suggest to the House that the Government will endeavour to see in their Lordships'

House a new Clause moved to provide a system whereby, in the event of an agency disagreement, the matter can be referred to me prior to 1st April, 1974. This means that if after the new authorities are elected next spring agreement cannot be reached either upon the need for an agency agreement or upon the terms of an agency agreement, there will ultimately be a right to refer this matter to the Secretary of State who will then arbitrate. I hope that every effort will be made by the authorities concerned to reach agreement. It will be to their benefit to do so, and there is plenty of time.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: One great problem with town planning is the question of time. There has to be consultation between the district authority and the council, and this can take months. I am in whole-hearted agreement that my right hon. Friend should put a time limit on it, but if the reference has to be made before 1st April, 1974, that does not give a long time for consultation before the deadline. Might he extend that period?

Mr. Walker: No, I am strongly opposed to extending the period. I think it allows plenty of time. The district boundaries will be known definitely by the autumn of this year, and from that time onwards those primarily concerned will be aware of the functions for which they wish to operate agency agreements. The question of whether a district is capable of carrying out a function, or whether a county considers it should have an agency for a particular function, should be fairly quickly concluded. There will be a period of virtually 12 months during which authorities can refer to me, and I will arrange a system within the Department by which these matters can be swiftly and effectively dealt with.
First, I hope that all authorities will endeavour to reach agreement. Second, if they do not reach agreement either on the need for an agency arrangement or on the terms, they will be able to refer the matter to me. Third, this will apply to the functions specified in Clause 101 of the Bill and will not apply to functions which do not come under agency agreements, and I think both sides of the House agree on that. Fourth, I am anxious that we should obtain the best possible advice on the matter and I shall,


therefore, be consulting the local authority associations and others with a view to sending a circular to local authorities giving the broad principles upon which agency arrangements should be made. Within the broad concepts of that advice decisions will be made on any matter referred to us. Finally, I do not want there to be uncertainty amongst the staff and others, and that is why the arrangement under the new Clause I hope to introduce in the other place will be limited to the period until 1974.
I hope on this basis to come to a satisfactory arrangement which will meet the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend, who I hope will be able to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I appreciate the spirit in which the Secretary of State has spoken, but I feel a little unsafe and would rather have teeth put into the Clause now than a promise that something might be done in another place. The district has no right to call for an agency. The whole matter is left entirely to the whim of the county council. The Clause, which looks impressive at first blush, is a milk and water scheme, weak and one-sided. The county council does not do the work but if it delegates it can make whatever conditions it pleases.
The Amendment puts teeth into the Clause and gives the district council power to call for the discharge of functions which the district has hitherto discharged, if it is the same area. The county council is not bound to agree or accept the request. It may refuse, and only then can the district council appeal to the Secretary of State. In considering the appeal, the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that the request is reasonable and that the district council has adequate resources and staff to enable it to discharge the particular functions in an efficient manner before he directs the county council to comply with the request in such manner as he may think fit. It is then that the council must act if the Secretary of State requests it to comply.
What could be more reasonable than that? What could show more conclusively that the district council has adequate staff and resources to enable it to discharge the particular functions in an

efficient manner than the fact that in the past it has carried them out with efficiency and distinction?
I urge the Minister seriously to reconsider accepting the Amendments now rather than having them put forward in another place.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. I am grateful to him for going as far as he has done. I agree entirely that there must be a time limit to end the uncertainty which may arise over this matter.
As my right hon. Friend has already answered other points I would have made, I have only one question to ask. That concerns the agency agreement which might be arrived at between district and parish councils further down the line. This was touched on earlier but has not been referred to since then. It does not come into the wording of the Amendments. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to be the arbiter again should there be a dispute between a district council and a parish council in such matters as, for instance, the running of a market. I should like my right hon. Friend's assurance that that will be the other part of his function and that the same time limit is set on that as well.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I welcome the way in which the Minister replied to the Amendment. I hope that in the other place consideration might be given to the exclusion clause in Clause 101(8) which excludes a great number of very important powers which are at present administered by county boroughs and probably not by district councils and, in that sense, introduces a new element into the weighting of the powers between the central county and the district council.
Some county boroughs which will become district councils or parts of district councils have in the past exercised these powers and will find a situation in which they will now be treated as the district councils in the past have been treated by the county councils.
Here there will also be an area of tension developing before the implementation of these proposals. Therefore, for the limited period which the Minister


envisaged, it may be as well if there is also a right of appeal even in relation to these powers which are excluded from the agency arrangements in Clause 101.
I hope that when the Minister drafts the new Clause he will give consideration to allowing a right of appeal even in these areas where agency powers as such are not permitted under the Bill.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I welcome the concession which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given. It is certainly my impression that there has been a general feeling across the country that the functions given to the district councils by the Bill have been less than many people have hoped for. I concede that the Government have gone some way to increase them since they started. But it is fairly strongly held in my part of the country that more powers should be given to district councils.
This was the feeling which lay behind the desire of many people for a metropolitan area in Lancashire. The Secretary of State knows my views on this matter, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell). We have discussed it with him on a number of occasions. The Secretary of State has turned down the proposal and I do not propose to go into that at present. But I accept that the grounds on which he has turned it down, in the context of central and north Lancashire, as it will be in the early years of the new system, had some force. It is against that background that I particularly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said.
I should like to make a couple of suggestions about the way in which my right hon. Friend should exercise his discretion and the way in which the Clause he intends to introduce in another place should be framed. I think it is fairly clear that the sort of authority for which the Clause will be particularly beneficial is likely to be the large urban authority, possibly a county borough, which has a substantial population and a long history of successful local government. Other areas which are likely particularly to benefit from this concession are those which differ substantially, at least in some respects, from the bulk of the county of which they form part. I think it is true to say that many of those areas will be areas like my own, namely seaside resorts.
When a town takes in, as Blackpool does, 8 million visitors a year, it is bound to have special problems which are totally different from those which affect the rest of the county. For example, the Blackpool illuminations involve four different departments of the county borough. It is not clear to me exactly what rôle some of those departments will play in future. It may be necessary to have an agency arrangement to deal with that problem; indeed, I think it is bound to be necessary. Such an arrangement is bound to be necessary too for other activities of resorts—for example, car parking and traffic management. The needs of a resort are totally different in these respects from those of an inland town of similar size. As a third example, its needs concerning Sunday closing are totally different from those of other areas.
In welcoming my right hon. Friend's concession, I do not assume that the new Lancashire county will be unreasonable. I think it will realise that it is in the interests of the whole county that all parts of it should flourish. These have, however, been real anxieties about the way in which the Bill has been framed until now. I believe that the new Clause envisaged by my right hon. Friend will go a long way to allay those fears.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I welcome the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and particularly the circular which he proposes to have prepared concerning the spirit of the two Amendments. There has, I think, been great difficulty not only among those who served on the Standing Committee but also in the House and outside on the problems and difficulties that we saw in the agency system. I still see difficulties in that respect.
I think that the Bill set out to be definitive concerning functions—clear functions being allocated to the counties on the one hand and to the districts on the other hand—but when from time to time the plea for agency arrangements was made in Committee one began to see a blurring of the philosophy underlying the Bill. It may certainly help now if arrangements between certain counties and district councils can be formulated. In this respect, I have seen Clause 101 as a contradiction to the philosophy behind the Bill but I hope we shall now be enabled


to see more clearly exactly where the definition of various local government purposes lies.
A whole series of quotations from the Committee proceedings could be given. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) read one which I regarded as particularly significant. Has my right hon. Friend in mind the whole range of powers, some of which we discussed in Committee, including highway powers, which will be defined between the counties and the districts?

2 a.m.

It is difficult to arrive at a fair and equitable conclusion. We all recognise that my right hon. Friend may be placing himself between the millstones of the various local authority associations. A letter from the County Councils Association dated 28th June states:
The Association are seriously concerned because these changes involve the allocation to district councils of functions which in the Association's view require the wider areas, population and resources of a county…In the Association's view, it is imperative that there should be no further whittling away of the functions of the new county councils…Nor should there be introduced any fresh provisions for splitting functional responsibility which would be likely to lead to further unwelcome built in friction between the new counties and the new districts, and to confusion in the minds of the public who are being served.
I know that my right hon. Friend recognises the genuine difficulties. This is why I welcome the Circular, which will give a clear definition of purpose to my right hon. Friend's intent.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The greatest criticism of the Bill is that it is county-orientated and takes no account of the large cities. The quotation from the letter written by the County Councils Association emphasises that point.
I welcome what the Minister has done. There has been some loosening of the original allocation of functions between counties and districts. I urge the Secretary of State to have another look at the exclusion provisions in Clause 101(8). A few district councils are so strong—I have in mind some of the former county boroughs—that they will be capable of looking after education services and social services. I see no reason why in this limited number of cases agency arrange-

ments should not be made for education and social services. However, that is specifically excluded by the Clause. I hope that when the Minister makes Amendments in the other place he will reconsider this question.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said and am particularly glad about the circular which will state how my right hon. Friend proposes to operate the Clause. Places such as Blackpool and the Isle of Thanet have special problems which need to be dealt with locally. In matters such as highways, consumer protection, illuminations, street cleansing, local car parking and traffic needs, tourist amenities and catering facilities there is a special expertise in tourist areas. The County of Kent, although an admirable county, does not have the same appreciation of those requisite facilities as does local expertise in the Isle of Thanet.
With regard to weights and measures and food and drugs, we have built up over a long period a complete expertise and a proper staff to carry out those functions efficiently. It is this type of thing which I hope the Minister will recognise requires the exercise of his discretion. The only reason for my intervention in this debate is to underline that I look forward to agency arrangements whereby the council will delegate those matters to the local authority. This can be done by 1st April, 1974. It must be either agreed or referred to before that date.
If there is a proper understanding between a large county such as Kent and an area such as the Isle of Thanet—and there is an exact example in the case of Lancashire and Blackpool—we shall be able to get a satisfactory delegation of those powers by way of agency which will secure an admirable settlement of these matters and may assist the Government when they deal with one or two of the other more difficult matters later in this Bill.

Mr. Denis Howell: I wish to make one or two general remarks and to raise a constituency matter about which the Minister for Local Government and Development wrote to me, which he tells me can only be dealt with by this Clause. It seems to me that it can be dealt with not only by this Clause but by the Amendment with which the hon. Member for


Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) is dealing—the question of the loss to Birmingham of its smallholdings as proposed by the Bill.
May I first say one or two things of a general character. I welcome what the Secretary of State said, although I am a little more doubtful than some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite about the time limit which it is proposed to impose. Whilst it is true that the bulk of the decisions will need to be determinedrapidly—I am with the Secretary of State so far—and certainly by 1974, councils come and go and they change their political complexion, and I wonder how the Secretary of State would intend to relate the changes which take place under our democratic procedures from time to time to the general question of the reserve powers that he should have to deal with such a situation in the event of dispute. I hope the Secretary of State will give attention to that point.
This has been an extraordinary debate, taking place in the small hours of the morning, when the Secretary of State has thought it right to come here—we are delighted to see him here so early in the morning—in order to show the importance that he attaches to the representations, which he clearly knew were coming not only from both sides of the House but from all parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) was quite right when he drew attention to the fact that this matter is one of great concern on a matter of major principle. I would go a little further than my hon. Friend who said he thought it showed that the whole of the Bill had been orientated towards counties. What this debate shows is that this Bill is fundamentally misconceived, that the case we made out time and again on Second Reading and ad nauseam in Committee, that the only sensible form of government nowadays is to have all-purpose authorities, has been truly made out in the debate.
What the Secretary of State is conceding and what his hon. Friends are urging upon him is that the present arrangements proposed by this Bill are nonsense in terms of modern local government, and these new proposals have now got to be

written into the Bill albeit for a short period. I do not wish to press that unduly, but I think it worth putting on record.
Through the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I congratulate the town clerk of Kidderminster, Mr. John Evans, who gave great help and advice in the cause which now comes before us in the form of the present Amendments. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Evans over a long time now, especially when I was a Minister, and I have always been extremely impressed by his sense of dedication to the cause of local government as well as to the town of Kidderminster. If he is now retiring, he is retiring on a famous victory, on which, I hope, the hon. Gentleman will convey our congratulations to him.
I turn now to the matter of the Birmingham smallholdings. The situation is unique. I am sorry to have to raise it without much notice, but the Minister for Local Government and Development sent me a letter only this afternoon telling me that he could not carry out the undertaking in the form given by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) when speaking for the Government in Committee.
The Birmingham smallholding undertaking is an extraordinarily interesting development. It exemplifies all that is best in local government. The smallholdings were started immediately after the First World War by a famous Member of Parliament, Mr. Jesse Collings, who wanted to give people coming back from the war the opportunity to establish themselves in a smallholding or an agricultural business. Millions of £s of Birmingham ratepayers' money have been poured into the development of the smallholdings since they were started in 1920. Many young men have been enabled to establish themselves in business as a result, and many Birmingham townspeople have been attracted to agriculture and a love of the countryside through the existence of the smallholdings.
Obviously, a city like Birmingham cannot find land for small holdings of this kind within its own boundary. It can operate the scheme only if it possesses land outside which it can use for the purpose. Birmingham people—both sides of the city council, I must tell the Minister—feel very angry that, following


the taking of so many other services from Birmingham, this unique example of smallholding enterprise covering many hundreds of acres, which, for the first time after 50 years of ploughing money in, is about to show a profit or is just beginning to show a profit because of careful and economical management, is now to be taken from the city and we are to have no opportunity to continue to own it.
The Minister told me in his letter—I had a much more encouraging response in Committee—that the problem could be dealt with only by some sort of agency arrangements under Clause 101. Virtually at midnight—he had been out all day and I could not reach him—I consulted the town clerk of Birmingham, and he expressed great dismay at the Minister's letter. Although he recognises the steps which the Minister has taken to try to meet the case, both he and I feel that those steps are inadequate. Birmingham will be put into the position of supplicant at the table of Staffordshire County Council.
It is an outrageous proposition that the Birmingham smallholdings, with the history I have outlined and which have achieved so much, should be taken from the City of Birmingham and handed over to the Staffordshire County Council and that Birmingham may then, by Staffordshire's leave, be allowed to continue to manage the smallholdings which it will no longer own.
I appeal to the Secretary of State and the Minister to look at the matter again. There would be no great repercussions throughout the country. This is a unique situation, and we are asking for a unique remedy.

2.15 a.m.

I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to look at the matter again because it is one upon which the whole city council is united. Rightly or wrongly the city feels a degree of resentment about the treatment it has received, particularly on boundaries and the question of the small-holdings which should be given careful consideration. As far as I know, no one in Staffordshire has ever sought to take the smallholdings away from the city. I hope this point can be re-examined because the present position is totally unsatisfactory for Birmingham. It is only a constituency case but it proves the

Secretary of State's point. If in such a situation Staffordshire were not as cooperative as many of us would hope then his reserve powers would be needed, and to that extent we are grateful to the Secretary of State for meeting the point.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for making the very helpful suggestions tonight for helping a number of cities, including Plymouth. There are about 15 cities which are quite capable of running their own affairs for a long time. What worries me is that many of us have set up good organisations as a result of the Seebohm Report's recommendations. A city like Plymouth has very different problems from those of other cities. We are worried that we shall not be able to carry on the excellent work. That is one reason why I deprecate subsections 8(e) and (f). It would be welcome if these provisions were to be reconsidered in the House of Lords.
Plymouth is a city and a port and it is expanding its business in the tourist industry. We are about to have a roll-on roll-off ferry between Plymouth and Roscoff in Brittany, and we shall expect even more people to come to the area, and we therefore need the facilities. It would be helpful if some of the agencies were dedicated to Plymouth.
I raised the question of the fire services in a speech recently. These and the port services are particularly important. If, therefore, agreement cannot be reached between the county and the district, perhaps the point could be borne in mind. There are vast differences between certain areas. That particularly applies to Plymouth which is the major industrial area, except for Bristol, in the South-West. It has considerable problems which are not compatible with those usually dealt with by the county.

Mr. Timothy Raison: My excuse for speaking in the debate is that I want to strike a slightly discordant note. I am a reluctant supporter of the Bill. I believe that in an ideal world we should have the unitary principle, but I recognise that there were compelling reasons related to the public's acceptability which led my right hon. Friend to go for what is in the Bill. I am reluctant to see any greater diversion from the unitary principle than is absolutely neces-


sary, and I do not share the view that we want to find new ways of transferring powers to the districts.
I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). I suspect that there was a good case for Plymouth being a separate authority, the decision has gone the other way and to go to great trouble to try to modify that decision will not help. The County Councils Association made some serious points in its letter dated 14th July, in which it objected to these proposals. The first objection, perhaps an essential one, is that what is proposed in the Amendments is that agency arrangements should be forced on one or other of the authorities. There is a good case for a voluntary agreement about agency arrangements if both authorities think there is a better way of doing things by transferring a power. That makes good sense, but it is a bad principle that one authority should be forced to hand over the operation of particular services to another.
I also share to some extent the Association's view that the right of appeal to the Secretary of State runs against the idea, which my right hon. Friend has often talked about when describing the Bill's purposes, of getting away from Whitehall and out into the local areas. The purpose of the Amendments is to give one more power to my right hon. Friend, and we should be very reluctant about giving him more powers, however excellent may be his use of them.
Thirdly, there is a kind of desire to hark back to the old system. The Bill was meant to bring about a great reform of local government, but from time to time we wonder whether it has not already become a little watered down, and whether the Amendments, and the Amendments to come about libraries, highways and so on, are not all further attempts to water down this reform. If we approach this big piece of legislation with the desire to undo the principles which are meant to underlie it, we are in danger of wasting our time. I suspect that we have made too many concessions already, and I am not very keen to see this new one. I am not persuaded that it will produce a more efficient set-up. I do not like the idea of compulsion, which it seems to me will, as the Association

claims, make for friction in an area where above all we do not want more friction. Therefore, I am rather reluctant on this subject.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will enlighten us now or at a later stage on how authorities revoke agency arrangements which might be made before 1974. I am not clear what the arrangements for revoking or terminating agency arrangements are generally under the Bill, and I should be interested to know what might be done. Obviously, if an agency arrangement is rammed down the throat of the local authority over the course of the next year it would be, to say the least, very interesting to know, how the process could be unscrambled.

Mr. Carol Mather: I welcome the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the agency agreements, and the persuasive way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) moved the Amendment.
District councils in my constituency have felt a great deal of concern about the functions they would lose. They were also worried because the words in the White Paper were somewhat at variance with the words in the Bill. This will go some way to satisfy their anxieties.
There has also been great anxiety over the question of functions and the fact that if they are lost the local councillors and officers will not have a worthwhile and responsible job. Therefore, I welcome the proposals, which will go some way to allay that anxiety and improve the Bill.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). The further we get away from the unitary principle and the nearer we get to the present division of functions in local government the more pointless the reform of local government is. I am fearful that we are continually making concessions which hark back to the present system. We seem to be basing our judgment on what some hon. Members might consider to be a fair division of functions between different types of local authority rather than taking decisions based on what is right in the light of the democratic needs and of the efficiency of local government.
I regret that my right hon. Friend has said that he will make a further concession in this case. Under the Amendment—although the new Clause to be introduced in another place may not be quite the same—in Wiltshire every district will be able to claim, although the claim may not be approved by the Secretary of State, from the county some functions which at present they carry out and which are not delegated to them in future. This confirms that we are harking back to the existing system and if we continue to do that I wonder what the point of the Bill is.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am surprised by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison). The proposals I have suggested in no way take away the responsibilities of either counties or districts for particular functions. We are purely concerned here with agency arrangements which both counties and districts have agreed are desirable for the effective continuation of local government. We are not considering taking away any responsibility for functions. We are talking either about disputes which might take place on the terms of an agency arrangement or about the desirability of such an agency arrangement taking place.
I give as an example of the kind of case where it would be desirable for such an arrangement to continue the excellent teams which certain local authorities have built up for the reclamation of derelict land. To see these teams, perhaps due to broad decisions of a county council, dissipated and broken up when they could be continued very well on an agency basis would be a great mistake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) referred to this as forcing local authorities to do things. After the new local authorities have their powers from 1st April, 1974, the new Clause to be introduced in the House of Lords will not apply at all. My hon. Friend's judgment, in effect, is that to have no method of arbitration would create less friction than having some method. It is a matter of viewpoint and neither of us can prove he is right.
On balance, I believe that agreement will be more easily reached if there is knowledge that there is an arbitrator

working on the principles to be outlined in a circular based on consultation with the local authority associations. That is not forcing the local authorities to do anything. The Secretary of State will not have the power to intervene and say, "You will or will not make an agency arrangement". He will have power only to say that if districts feel they have a capacity which would enable them to carry out on an agency basis a particular function and terms cannot be reached with the county, he can arbitrate. I believe on balance that that will decrease rather than increase friction, and that is my motive.

Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend has raised a doubt in my mind. He suggests that agency arrangements would lapse in 1974, which I take it is not the case. Can he really expect an authority to exercise responsibility against the will of the authority to which responsibility attaches? That is a very unfair situation.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Walker: I disagree with my hon. Friend. The basis of sending the circular would be to outline the terms on which agency arrangements would be advantageous to local government, and such arrangements would be supported by the Secretary of State only if certain of the functions could be carried out more efficiently as a result. This will diminish the overall friction.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) does not come within the Clause. It will not apply to arrangements between parish councils and districts. In the past, parish councils have not had the power as of right to take such agencies, though districts have been able to give it to them. It is therefore a different situation.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will look at the question, because it raises one or two grave problems for parish councils for the future?

Mr. Walker: I will certainly look at it but, in all fairness, I must make it quite clear that I would not envisage a system whereby a parish council could as of right suggest agency powers being given to it.
The exclusions under the Clause will remain, and my new Clause will not attempt to alter them as they now exist.
I should like to consider the matter of the Birmingham smallholdings, and I will contact the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) knowing that this is a subject about which Birmingham is very concerned. It might be dealt with in a number of ways, such as orders relating to property disposal, but we will look at the various ways in which it can be examined.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). I know the interest of Blackpool and a number of seaside towns in this question.
As to the concept voiced by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) and his suggestion about county domination, I am in the happy position that the county thinks that I have not given it enough powers while the district thinks I have given it too many, so I think I have it about right.

Sir T. Brinton: In view of the Minister's assurance, if my supporters, of whom there are 48, are content to abide by it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 601, in page 64, line 21, leave out from 'committee' to first 'or' in line 22 and insert 'a sub-committee'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following Government Amendments: Nos. 1049, 1044, 1050, 1051, 602, 604, 1052, 605–613, 1053, 614–618, and 1054.

Mr. Page: I am delighted to say that the Amendments from No.601 to 618 do not raise any issue of substance. They clarify the drafting of Clauses 101 to 106 by saying that "committee" means "committee", and that seems an obvious and reasonable thing to do. They introduce a simple form of words to cover both committees which are appointed by the council and those which are established under various statutes.
The whole point of it is that a subcommittee of the council may not be

called a sub-committee of the committee that appoints it; it is a committee of the committee that appoints it. That encouraged me to consider what Gilbert might have said if he had thought of it first:
When a sub committee's sitting in committee of committee,
It's a council sub-committee you'll admit;
So that each sub-sub-committee is a substitute committee,
That a substantive committee has commit.
I might have added:
Oh what pretty little ditties
One can sing of joint committees
and so on, but I had better not do so at this stage of the night. When the draftsman has been tidying up a number of Clauses like this, the House ought to accept the tidying up. There is no substance in any of the issues.
Amendments Nos. 620 and 621 are concerned with Clause 112. Its aim is to bring to an end as many as practicable of the present statutory requirements on local authorities to appoint certain specified officers. However, we found that in carrying out that admirable aim Clause 112 failed to make a distinction between the existing requirements which we wanted to abolish and which obliged an authority to appoint a named officer to discharge a certain function of the authority, and those requirements which we ought to retain and which oblige an authority to appoint an officer who is given specified statutory powers and duties in his own right. This is the difference between a town clerk—and we want to abolish the statutory need to appoint a town clerk—and a registration officer for electors who is appointed to do a specific duty. The remedy is simple. It is to remove a few words from Clause 112(3).
All the Amendments from No. 1049 onwards are tidying-up Amendments dealing with the definition of "local authorities" where in some places that expression means existing authorities and in others future authorities. The definition of "relevant authority" and the reference to joint boards and joint committees need a little tidying up. The Amendments also bring certain membership disqualifications together instead of scattering them around the Bill.
Amendment No. 1049 deals with the appointment of committees and tidies up drafting.
Clause 101 already empowers authorities and committees to arrange for their functions to be discharged by officers and Amendment No. 1044 merely extends that power to sub-committees unless the council otherwise directs, or is so directed by the committee which established the sub-committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 1049, in page 64, line 23, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 26.

No. 1044, in page 64, line 31, at end add:
'and whereby virtue of this section any functions of a local authority may be discharged by a sub-committee of the authority, then, unless the local authority or the committee otherwise direct, the sub-committee may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by an officer of the authority'.

No. 1050, in page 64, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) Where arrangements are in force under this section for the discharge of any functions of a local authority by another local authoriy, then, subject to the terms of the arrangement, that other authority may arrange for the discharge of those functions by a committee, sub-committee or officer of theirs and subsection (2) above shall apply in relation to those functions as it applies in relation to the functions of that other authority'.

No. 1051, in page 65, line 2, at end insert:

'(4A) Two or more local authorities may discharge any of their functions jointly and, where arrangements are in force for them to do so—
(a) they may also arrange for the discharge of those functions by a joint committee of theirs or by an officer of one of them and subsection (2) above shall apply in relation to those functions as it applies in relation to the functions of the individual authorities; and
(b) any enactment relating to those functions or the authorities by whom or the areas in respect of which they are to be discharged shall have effect subject to all necessary modifications in its application in relation to those functions and the authorities by whom and the areas in respect of which (whether in pursuance of the arrangements or otherwise) they are to be discharged'.

No. 602, in page 65, line 4, leave out 'of'.

No. 603, in page 65, line 36, leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
(c) sections 2(2) and 3(4) of the Police Act 1964 (police committees).

No. 604, in page 65, line 42, after 'committees)', insert:
(g) section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation of persons employed in local government service, etc.).

No. 1052 in page 66, leave out lines 15 to 22 and insert:
'(11) In this Part of this Act "local authority" includes the Common Council, the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple, the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple, a joint board on which a local authority within the meaning of this Act or any of the foregoing authorities are represented and, without prejudice to the foregoing, any port health authority'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move Amendment No. 537, in page 66, line 19. at end insert:
(12) Where an action has been brought against an officer of a local authority in respect of an act done by him in the discharge or purported discharge of functions delegated to him under this section and the circumstances are such that he is not legally entitled to require the delegating authority to indemnify him, that authority may nevertheless indemnify him against the whole or any part of any damages and costs which he may have been ordered to pay or may have incurred, if they are satisfied that he honestly believed that the act complained of was done in the discharge of those functions and that his duty required or entitled him to do it.
This is a matter of some importance to local government officers but at this late hour I will try to be brief. Clause 101 confers upon a local authority power to delegate any of its functions to officers of the authority. A provision of this character is a necessary and desirable feature. However, it seems that in its present form the Clause needs something else added to it if the officers to whom powers are delegated are to carry out their delegated duties without fear or favour and without risk of interference beyond the policy-making stage from members of the authority.
It is essential, therefore, to include some statutory protection for their actions. This explains, and I hope justifies, the Amendment. The Amendment is one which stands on its merits, but if this does not convince the Minister I also plead a precedent for such a provision and a precedent to which I believe he will pay serious attention. He is no doubt familiar with the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, Section 64 of which deals with the delegation of planning functions to officers of local authorities. Subsection (6) of that Section gives an


indemnity to such officers in the same terms as those used in the Amendment. I do not think that the Minister would argue that there is any essential difference between the position of officers who exercise delegated powers under Clause 101 of the Bill and that of officers acting under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. I hope therefore, that for those reasons the Minister will find it possible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I can give the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) the assurance that this Amendment is unnecessary. We know of no occasion on which there have been any proceedings against an officer on these grounds where mens rea—the guilty mind—has not been a necessary proof on behalf of the prosecution. It is not an absolute offence and it is not necessary to provide for the officer in the way envisaged in the Amendment. The hon. Member gives as a precedent a Section in the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act. That was a very special occasion when we were appointing inspectors to undertake decisions in planning matters without resort to the Secretary of State. I think I am on the right Section.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Johnson: Section 64 of the 1968 Act refers expressly to the fact that
A local planning authority may delegate to any officer of the authority the function of determining…the following applications…".

Mr. Page: I had in mind a special occasion when we were giving a completely new power to local authorities to delegate planning decisions to their officers where the officer had to take the decision entirely on his own responsibility. In that case the provision was included out of an abundance of caution. Looking at it now from a legal point of view, I think it was unnecessary, and I think it is unnecessary to include the provision in the Amendment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the legal advice I have had is to the effect that the Amendment is unnecessary and that the officers are fully protected without it.

Mr. Johnson: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 102

APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES

Amendments made: No. 978, in page 66, line 26, leave out 'of a local authority'.

No. 979, in page 66, line 29, leave out first 'the' and insert 'a local'.

No. 605, in page 67, line 3, after 'committee' insert 'other than a sub-committee'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 103

EXPENSES AND ACCOUNTS OF JOINT COMMITTEES

Amendment made: No. 606, in page 67, line 25, leave out from 'committee' to 'authorities' in line 27 and insert:
'of two or more local authorities whether appointed or established under this Part of this Act or any other enactment shall be defrayed by those'.

No. 607, in page 67, line 29, leave out 'the appointing' and insert 'those'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 622, in page 67, line 33, after 'by', insert:
'a single arbitrator agreed on by the appointing authorities or, in default of agreement, appointed by'.
Clause 103 provides that expenses incurred by joint committees shall be defrayed by the local authorities which appoint or establish them in such proportions as they may agree. In the event of disagreement about the proportions, the Secretary of State is given the job of determining the disagreement where authorities which appoint the joint committee are not parish or community councils situated in the same district. This is not the sort of squabble the Secretary of State ought to be asked to settle. The right thing to be done is for the authorities to appoint an arbitrator and not to bring in the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 104

DISQUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES AND JOINT COMMITTEES

Amendments made: No. 608, in page 67, line 37, leave out 'or sub-committee' and insert '(including a sub-committee)'.

No. 609, in page 67, line 39, leave out 'appointed by' and insert '(including a sub-committee) of'.

No. 610, in page 67, line 40, leave out 'sub-committee'.

No. 611, in page 68, line 2, leave out 'or sub-committee'.

No. 612, in page 68, line 8, leave out from 'committee' to end of line 11 and insert:
'of the authority and another authority which has been appointed or established for any such purpose'.

No. 613, in page 68, line 14, leave out from 'committee' to 'as' in line 16 and insert:
'of a local authority or a joint committee of two or more local authorities'.

No. 1053, in page 68, line 17, at end add—
'(4) In the application of this section to the Common Council for the reference to Part V of this Act there shall be substituted a reference to the enactments for the time being in force relating to disqualification for membership of the Common Council'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 105

DISABILITY FOR VOTING ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IN CONTRACTS, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 614, in page 68, line 19, leave out from 'committee' to first 'under' in line 22 and insert:
of a local authority or of a joint committee of two or more local authorities (including in either case a sub-committee), whether the committee or joint committee are appointed or established'.

No. 615, in page 68, line 25, leave out from beginning to second 'the' in line 28 and insert—
(a) references to meetings of any such committee shall be substituted for references to meetings of the local authority; and
(b) in the case of members of a committee of a local authority or any sub-committee.

No. 616, in page 68, line 33, leave out from 'sub-committee' to end of line 36.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 106

STANDING ORDERS, ETC.

Amendments made:No. 617, in page 68, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 40 and insert:

'Standing orders may be made as respects any committee of a local authority by that authority or as respects a joint committee of two or more local authorities, whether appointed or established under this Part of this Act or any other enactment, by those authorities with respect to'.

No. 618, in page 68, line 41, leave out from first 'committee' to 'but' in line 42 and insert:
'or joint committee (including any subcommittee)'.

No. 619, in page 69, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 107

APPLICATION TO CITY OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO JOINT COMMITTEES

Amendment made:No. 1054, in page 69, line 4, leave out Clause 107.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 111

SUBSIDIARY POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 509, in page 70, line 4, at end insert:
'including the supply of heat to such premises in their area and such premises owned by them outside their area as they may think fit upon and subject to any such bylaws as they think fit and to such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the local authority and the owners or accupiers of premises'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment we can also take Amendment No. 510, in page 187, line 37, at end insert:
' "heat" means heat however supplied and includes hot water and hot air but does not include gas other than non-combustible gas;'.

Mr. Silkin: That is a consequential Amendment, and it includes a definition of the sort I was always taught one should never make—a definition which includes the word to be defined. There are, however, precedents for that, and this was taken from a Private Bill. That does not mean that it is the last word, and if the Minister cares to use his imagination to get a better definition I shall, of course, willing give up all private authorship and resign to him. The defin-


ition in Amendment 510 is that "heat means heat"—
 'heat' means heat however supplied and includes hot water and hot air but does not include gas other than non-combustible gas".
First of all I would say that the House is well aware of the importance of district heating not only as an economical means of supplying heating over a large area but as an environmental advantage in the supply of heat and hot water, and there is no doubt that, as the years go by, it is being increasingly used here and throughout the world. In fact, the Department of the Environment itself recently announced that about 14 per cent. of local authority dwellings under construction this year will be heated by district heating. It is an extremely important factor in heating.
Curiously, what has grown up is a kind of patchwork of legislation which does not deal with district heating in any separate form. There is no comprehensive piece of legislation, which is what one would expect, which enables a local authority to install and operate a district heating system, and the result is, rather curiously, that a local authority may not have power to break up a highway or to sell heat to tenants, or to properties, whether private or public, not owned by the authority, or purchase heat from a nearby scheme or power station; and the only way round that, as the law stands at the moment, is for Private Bills to be introduced, and they are both expensive and complicated.
Although a number of the larger authorities have introduced such Private Bills from time to time the smaller authorities are very reluctant to follow this lead because of the expense and complication. What the smaller authorities are left with is a group of small, permissive powers in various Acts, the Housing Act, 1957, Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, and the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act, 1970—patchwork, piecemeal legislation, none of which fully meets the point.
We have to consider this factor, that whereas it has been unsatisfactory from the point of view of legislation in the past to consider the question of district heating, it is even more unsatisfactory as we approach the reorganisation of local

government, if only because it is the district councils which have the housing responsibility and it will be the counties which have the highways responsibility. Since both of those are involved in district heating we find ourselves once again with patchwork legislation, very difficult to deal with.
I hope that the Minister will take my Amendments in good part. I do not expect him fully to accept them as drafted because, as I have so frequently and wearisomely said, it is no part of my business in life to act as an unpaid draftsman to his Department, but I hope that he will accept the principle of them. In view of the large and increasing use of district heating, it is time to put it on a sound legislative basis, and I hope that the Minister in that spirit will consider it.

Mr. Graham Page: It might be said that we have had on this Bill enough hot air to satisfy anybody. It has been non-combustible gas throughout and, having kept the temperature down so far, I hope that we shall not now turn on the heat. I think I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently to keep the debate cool.
Clause 111 would be quite the wrong place in which to provide local authorities with a power of the kind sought in the Amendment. The Local Government Bill is not the right place to attempt to deal with district heating. Powers relating to district heating are contained in about 40 local Acts. That is a good reason for putting all the legislation into a public Act.
The effect of the Bill on those local Acts will be that unless the Minister makes an order preserving them they will lapse at the end of 1979 in the case of authorities within the metropolitan areas and at the end of 1984 elsewhere. It is my intention to add provisions relating to district heating undertakings to the list of those provisions which, by virtue of Clause 250(10), will be exempted from the lapsing provisions of the Clause. That is an excess of caution because I hope that by that time we shall have embodied the district heating provisions in a public statute. The job of providing local authorities with district heating powers in public legislation would need a substantial Statute or series of Clauses. I am not prepared to take it aboard the Bill.
I recognise that public legislation is needed, and I hope that soon we shall be able to find a niche in the legislative programme in which to produce a Bill on this subject. It might be a good Bill for a Private Member to take up. Legislation is obviously needed, but this Bill is not the right place for it.
Again I come before the right hon. Gentleman in sackcloth and ashes and ask him to leave it a little longer to see whether we can get it on the Statute Book in a good form.

Mr. John Silkin: I think that the Bill is probably the right place for it. I was not aware that there were as many as 40 Private Acts relating to district heating, but I should have thought that a Local Government Bill, particularly one concerned with reorganisation, was ideal for it. But, on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the problem and has undertaken that there will be legislation at the earliest possible moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 112

APPOINTMENT OF STAFF

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 980, in page 70, line 17, leave out 'their functions' and insert
'such of their or another authority's functions as fall to be discharged by them'.
This is an Amendment which puts beyond doubt the power of an authority acting under an arrangement made under Clause 101 to employ staff for the purpose of discharging the function which is the subject of the arrangement.
We found that Clause 112 fails to cover the case where, for example, a district council is discharging a county council's function under Clause 101. The district council will need to employ staff for this purpose. The Amendment ensures that what I call the agent authority has the necessary power to employ the staff for that purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move, Amendment No. 539, in page 70, line 23, at end insert—

(3) In the appointment of officers under subsection (1) above a local authority shall, so far as is compatible with efficient performance of their functions, ensure that preference in making senior appointments is given to officers already employed in the service of a local authority.
Although this is an important point, I can put it to the Minister quite shortly. The Minister will be well aware of the great anxieties and apprehensions that exist among many local government staff about their future prospects under the large-scale reorganisation provided for by the Bill. Those fears and apprehensions have not been lessened by the rumours currently circulating that the Government hope that there will be an attraction to some of the new top appointments of people from commerce and industry. If this be true, the Minister will understand and agree that that is likely to undermine considerably the morale of staff. NALGO considers it important that it should be made clear that nothing in the Bill is designed or intended to block normal promotion prospects for existing staff.
The Amendment is intended to establish a rule of practice that normal promotion to senior office will go to serving officers unless there is a very strong and exceptional case arising in particular circumstances for bringing in an outsider to maintain or achieve efficiency. That seems to me to be a very reasonable provision to incorporate in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept it.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman said that this was an effort to protect normal promotion, but the Amendment goes much wider than that. It would require all authorities, when making senior appointments under Clause 112, to ensure that they give preference to officers already employed by any local authority. It is a very wide provision and would be very restrictive on local authorities in making their appointments.
I appreciate that the top posts in local government have, over the years, become quite attractive to people from outside. One of the main reasons for this is that the traditional departmental structure is breaking down and that new approaches to management are being adopted, and this attracts and may necessitate the employment of some outside the present local government service. Perhaps there is some force, therefore, in the argument


that competition for senior posts in local government is attracting candidates from a wider field than in the past and that one ought, therefore, to protect those who are already in the service.
But it is a good thing that there is this competition. If the community is to be served well, local authorities should appoint the best man for the job, quite irrespective of his background. It would be contrary to the community's interest to give preference to a serving local government officer if he were not as well fitted for the job as someone from outside. Indeed, normally he has a great advantage over anyone from outside because he has a great knowledge of the job and of local government service which anyone coming from outside would not have.
I am quite sure that there will be advice to the new authorities from the Staff Commission about the employment of existing local government officers in the new authorities and I do not wish to derogate in any way from what advice may come from the Staff Commission on that subject. Although I am quite sure that normally local authorities will give every consideration to an appointment of someone who is already in the service, I would think it quite wrong to make a statutory restriction to limit local authorities to that choice, and only that choice, when they make appointments. I must resist the Amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am extremely sorry to hear that reply. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) for being absent when he moved his Amendment. This matter gave us a great deal of concern in Committee. I asked the Under-secretary of State, who dealt with it, whether he could give us comparable statistics about whether civil servants lost their jobs when various Government Departments were merged. Of course civil servants did not lost their jobs.
We have had amalgamation in the Ministry of Defence. We have had a mammoth amalgamation in the right hon. Gentleman's Department of the Environment. We have had amalgamations in other Government Departments. All the time the civil servants have very properly made sure that their position has been protected. The Civil Service unions have

been anxious to do that. That being the case, it is monstrous that similar provision is not being applied to local government staffs. I do not think that when mergers of this sort were taking place any trade union would allow them to go ahead without provision similar to that for which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South is asking.
I listened carefully to the Minister's reply. Of course the public wants to get the best service. Nevertheless, we are dealing here with people who are in post and we are dealing with mergers between local authorities. It is straining the argument to breaking point to suggest that when two or three people are being considered for one post, from that of a chief officer to one of the subsidiary positions lower down the scale, an occasion will not arise when none of those people is found to be acceptable and it is proposed to bring in somebody from outside. In my view, the number of occasions when in such circumstances there would be justification on grounds of merit for bringing in somebody from outside would be infinitesimal—at least, sufficiently rare as to be worth taking the risk that on a very rare occasion the authority concerned might well dispense with the outside appointment in the interest of fair play.
Civil servants very properly protect their interests in this way. I am sorry that the Minister has not been armed with the information for which we asked in Committee and which might have convinced us a little more about this matter. The question is one which seriously concerns NALGO people, as many of us know from correspondence we have had from all over the country. I do not know that my hon. Friend will feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment. In the circumstances, I cannot advise him to do so.

Mr. Graham Page: The Amendment relates to the general power to employ staff. It has nothing whatever to do with reorganisation. The question of reorganisation is dealt with thoroughly in another part of the Bill so that redundancies do not occur on reorganisation.

Mr. Denis Howell: If I have misunderstood the position and the right hon. Gentleman is assuring us that this is


post-reorganisation and does not include both, I think that it would be right to pursue the matter at a later stage. As I had read it, and as I think that my hon. Friend had read it, we assumed that it related to the reorganisation and the post-reorganisation phase. We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for putting us right. In those circumstances we can return to the matter later and I am happy to leave it there.

Amendment negatived:

Amendments made: No. 620, page 70, line 24, leave out from beginning to "shall" in line 27 and insert:

"Subject to subsection (4) below, any enactment or instrument made under an enactment which requires or empowers all local authorities or local authorities of any description or committees of local authorities to appoint a specified officer".

No. 621, in page 70, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert:

The reference in this section to committees of local authorities does not include a reference to any committee of which some members are required to be appointed by a body or person other than a local authority.

(4) Subsection (3) above does not apply to the following officers, that is to say—
(a) district surveyors and deputy district surveyors of the Greater London Council appointed under section 75 or 80 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939;
(b) chief education officers appointed under section 88 of the Education Act 1944;
(c) chief officers and other members of fire brigades maintained under the Fire Services Act 1947;
(d) inspectors of weights and measures appointed under section 41 of the Weights and Measures Act 1963;
(e) agricultural analysts and deputy agricultural analysts appointed under section 67(3) of the Agriculture Act 1970; and
(f) directors of social services appointed under section 6 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970;
and it is hereby declared that subsection (3) above does not apply to public analysts appointed under section 89 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 or to any other person appointed by a local authority to perform a specified function.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move Amendment No. 540, in page 70, line 29, at end insert:
(a) section 110 of the Local Government Act 1933 (medical officers of health and senior sanitary inspectors).

I suggest that with this Amendment it will be convenient to the House to discuss Amendment No. 541, in page 343, line 40, column 3, Schedule 30, after 'except' insert 'section 110'.
My hon. Friends and I regret that this crucial issue is being discussed at this time of the morning. I declare an interest, in that I was President of the Association of Public Health Inspectors and am now, in common with many others, a vice-president of that body.
The Amendment seeks to restore the requirement for the appointment of a medical official of health and what we today call the chief public health inspector but what is described by the 1933 Act as the senior sanitary inspector.
Under the Bill, it will no longer be a requirement that a medical officer of health must be appointed by local authorities. There is every intention that the work that medical officers of health have done will continue to be carried out, no doubt by qualified persons. We have no adequate information about the arrangements the Government intend to make to take the place of the provisions they are deleting.
Although I called attention to this matter in Committee, we have not yet got the full statement of the Government's intentions with regard to the reorganisation of the National Health Service, under which we are assured that provision will be made. It is a scandal that we should be asked to agree to this provision to get rid of this qualified post we have known in the past without our having full knowledge of what is to take its place.

3.15 a.m.

This is a matter of some concern. Certainly local authorities have anxiously raised this matter with many of us. There is the question of the provision that is to be made for the registration of communicable diseases, which at present is the duty of the medical officer of health, and we do not know in precise detail how that is to be carried out in future. It would be wrong for Parliament to dispose of this Measure without having the complete and detailed information as to what is to take the place of the existing provisions.

No one can say that the Government have not had sufficient warning about this. They have had it repeatedly, but I am still not satisfied that we have the complete knowledge that ought to be in our hands. We are somewhat powerless at this time of the morning to do very much about it, and I think it is something of a public scandal that we should be required to deal at this time with this vital matter that affects the health of people in our towns.

The second item in this Amendment is the public health inspector. Again I think it is shocking that we should be dealing with this situation in this way, with the inevitable handful of people left in the House to deal with it. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may treat this matter lightly and think that it is of little or no importance, but I do not. Nor do I believe that people outside would do so if they knew the true situation. The public health inspector in the past has been an independent officer who has had the right of protection by and appeal to the Minister. This protection is to go, although the situation has not changed.

There were cases not long ago of an acute division between the duty of the public health inspector to express his honest opinions, to give honest independent advice to his council and to make such public statements as he thought right, and the position of certain of the council members. This is precisely the situation against which it was intended that the public health inspector should be protected. Not long ago a situation arose in South Shields where there was clearly some danger of conflict of interests. This is no new situation. That is why the provision was written in.

Even under the revised terms of this Amendment, various officers are to be retained, but not the public health inspector. I believe this is a threat to the interests of the public. The Government say that the intention is to give greater freedom to the local authority. What kind of credence does one give to a Government who have insisted on imposing on local authorities all kinds of new crippling powers? What hypocritical nonsense that is. This is a matter of extreme concern.

The Association of Public Health Inspectors has raised this matter, and, on its behalf, I have raised it both in Committee and in correspondence with the Minister. All the representations have been brushed aside by the Minister as of no consequence. This is quite unsatisfactory.

What is more, the regulations governing the type of qualifications required before a public health inspector may be appointed are to go, apparently. The Minister says that it is all right to leave it to the general good will and understanding of independent local authorities in the future, and that they can be relied on to do the right thing. But, as far as I can see, there will be nothing in the law to prevent their securing the service of a cheap alternative to a health inspector if they so decide. There are quite a number of people whose qualifications do not meet the standards required by the guild and by the examining board but who might well be used by some authorities which, perhaps, cared not enough about standards and which might find someone willing to perform these duties at a rather lower rate.

These are serious matters, and it is incredible that the Minister should brush them aside. It is all very well to want to ensure proper freedom for local authorities—I wish they would ensure it in many respects where that is right and necessary—but there are certain matters in respect of which there should be complete protection of the public and, at the same time, independence and backing for officers of this kind who have a duty to perform which may, and in practice sometimes does, bring them into conflict with their employers.

We shall not be satisfied unless the Minister is prepared to consider the matter again in another place. Presumably, that is the only thing that can now be done, unless he will accept the Amendments now. It is a matter for deep anxiety when a body of this kind—the same goes for the medical officers of health, but I am speaking now of public health inspectors in particular—a body of highly qualified men on whom we all rely in so many ways for basic standards of health in the environment, finds the whole position of its members endangered or threatened. That is how I see it. Even to a small degree, it would


be serious, but this is no small degree. It is a real threat, and I again protest at our having to discuss such an important matter at 25 minutes past three in the morning.

Mr. Graham Page: There is nothing in the Bill which lays down that local authorities shall not appoint a medical officer of health or a senior sanitary inspector, but it seemed from the argument advanced by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that he thought that there was a prohibition to that effiect in the Bill.

Mr. Blenkinsop: No, of course not.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman's argument in favour of the Amendment is that local authorities have important responsibilities for public health and that, to discharge those responsibilities properly, they need highly qualified staff. I do not believe that the only way to ensure that these requirements are met is to put all authorities under a statutory duty to appoint medical officers and public health inspectors, and to prescribe the qualifications for each.
It is unnecessary to put local authorities under a duty to make the appointment of these officers any more than it is necessary to put them under a duty to appoint a town clerk or a treasurer. Local authorities are responsible and competent bodies and can be relied upon to appoint the staff they need with the appropriate qualifications to help them to discharge their functions. If the authorities cannot be trusted to appoint the right sort of staff, surely they should not be trusted with the wide and important responsibilities which they have for so many services.
The aim of Clause 101 and Clause 112 is to remove as many as practicable of the existing statutory controls in relation to the internal organisation of the local authorities so that each authority can adopt the management structure at member and officer level which best suits the circumstances of that authority. We propose to carry out those intentions. We believe that except in cases where the Secretary of State shares a responsibility, we should not dictate to local authorities what their management structure should be and what officers they should employ. I must resist the Amendment. It goes against the whole philosophy of the Bill.

Mr. Denis Howell: That was an extremely disappointing reply. The Minister made the best of a bad job. He did not attempt to explain why the appointment of a chief education officer is provided for but not the appointment of a medical officer of health. On the Minister's own argument, why cannot the local authorities be left to be responsible and decide for themselves if they want a chief education officer? It is obvious that the earthy people of Curzon Street realise that they must have the appointment of their chief officer written into the Bill. They are not standing for any nonsense from Horseferry Road.
The situation relating to the inspectors of weights and measures is even more incredible. On the local authority on which I serve—and this applies to most localauthorities—the weights and measures department are to be found operating under the authority of the medical officer of health. The ludicrous situation therefore is that there will not be a statutory obligation to have a medical officer of health but there will be a statutory obligation to have a chief weights and measures officer. Can anything be more inconsistent?
The appointment of a medical officer of health or a chief sanitary officer is not the result of any quirk or accident or foible. It was because, through a long tradition, those officers above all had to deal with a great deal of vested interest which might be found, for example, in bad landlords who did not want orders made in respect of their premises relating to their unsanitary nature. We must have, in health more than in any other local authority service, officers who pre-eminently feel that their independence and integrity is sanctified by the law of the land. We want to hear the argument for removing that protection.
Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman has not advanced any case for its removal. It is not as if landlords have improved as the years have passed. Rather, the contrary is the case. Rachmanism in one form or another is probably more rampant throughout the land today than it has been for many years. A Conservative hon. Member shakes his head. He might intervene to give us evidence to the contrary. All the evidence possessed by those in large cities supports what I have said.

3.30 a.m.

I am sorry to say, especially since we introduced the fair rent proposals when we were in Government, that the complaints about landlords imposing increased rents without doing the necessary work for which a fair rent would be justified are increasing. In my constituency in the past few days I have heard of two or three more cases of very old people on whom landlords have served notice of increased rents which the tenants do not feel to be justified. It is a great source of comfort to know that the chief medical officer or the chief public health inspector can be asked to conduct an impartial investigation. Although the rent tribunal procedure and the fair rents proposals give a measure of protection, it is nothing like adequate.

We are extremely disappointed with the Minister's reply. He has not tried to justify the removal of the statutory pro-

Division No. 298.]
AYES
[3.33 p.m.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Oakes, Gordon



Deakins, Eric
Roper, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Skinner, Dennis
and Mr. John Golding.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gummer, Selwyn
Scott-Hopkins, James


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Sharples, Richard


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Biffen, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Soref, Harold


Bowden, Andrew
Kinsey, J. R.
Speed, Keith


Bray, Ronald
Knox, David
Spence, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Le Merchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Longden, Gilbert
Trew, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Dame Joan


Chapman, Sydney
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Clegg, Walter
Mather, Carol
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Cockeram, Eric
Moate, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Crouch, David
Morrison, Charles
Weatherill, Bernard


Fidler, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Woodnutt, Mark


Fortescue, Tim
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Gibson-Watt, David
Raison, Timothy



Goodhew, Victor
Redmond, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Hugh Rossi


Gray, Hamish
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
and Mr. Marcus Fox.


Green, Alan
Scott, Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 113

PLACING OF STAFF OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AT DISPOSAL OF OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 624, in page 71, line 25, leave out 'persons' and insert 'officers'.

vision in respect of public health officers, chief sanitary inspectors, and medical officers of health as compared with the provision which he is retaining for certain other officers in education, the fire brigade, weights and measures and so on.

We feel very strongly about the matter and believe that we should register our objection even at this late hour. It is a matter of the greatest principle. The work which the medical officers of health and chief public health inspectors do for the community as a whole should be protected. We should register our disapproval of the Minister's reply and the abolition of these statutory figures who, by tradition, have served the country well.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 56.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 625.

Mr. Page: Whenever one is stopped by a police constable it is well known that one should deferentially address him as "officer". These Amendments adopt the same practice in respect of local government employees. We found that in Clause


112 they were referred to as "officers" and in Clause 113 as "persons". The Amendments replace the references in Clause 113 to "persons" by references to "officers".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move Amendment No. 959, in page 71, line 26, at end insert:
but shall not enter into any such agreement with respect to any officer without consulting him".
I suggest that this is a simple, sensible and reasonable provision which should be inserted into any Clause dealing with the transfer of officers from one local authority to another. The Amendment is designed to ensure that before a local authority can agree to transfer or second an officer to serve under another authority the officer concerned will first be consulted and his consent obtained.
I am sure that the Minister would agree with me that in such a transfer the terms and conditions of the officer's service should also be safeguarded. On this aspect, I understand that the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963, applies equally to local government staff, and covers that point. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to confirm that that is so, and that under the Clause an authority could not get away with worsening an officer's terms and conditions without his consent.

Mr. Graham Page: I regret that as drafted the Bill treated local government officers rather like bulls on a stud farm; they could be let out to serve another local authority cow. I am very sorry that we treated them in that way. I believe that even farmers now consult the bull. The Amendment is quite correct, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1055, in page 71, line 27, leave out from beginning to "for".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 1056.

Mr. Page: These Amenedments are linked, because in Clause 113 one authority is empowered to make agreements with another authority to put the service

of its staff at the disposal of the other authority for the purpose of discharging the other authority's functions. It would be wrong to risk adversely affecting the superannuation rights of an officer who was the subject of such an agreement.

3.45 p.m.

Without going into details, I assure the House that the Amendments avoid that risk of affecting the superannuation rights and protect the officer who is so transferred.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

No. 625, in page 71, line 28, leave out "a person" and insert:
an officer of a local authority".

No. 1056, in page 71, line 31, at end insert:
'but any such officer shall be treated for the purposes of any enactment relating to the discharge of local authorities' functions as an officer of that other local authority'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 116

MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES NOT TO BE APPOINTED AS OFFICERS

Amendment made: No. 579, in page 72, line 22, leave out from 'chairman' to 'deputy' in line 23 and insert:
'or vice chairman and in the case of the Greater London Council the office of.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 118

PAYMENT OF SALARY, ETC., DUE TO MENTALLY-DISORDERED PERSON

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 626, in page 73, line 39. leave out 'more than £100'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment we are to take Amendments Nos. 627, 628 and 629.

Mr. Page: Clause 118 enables a local authority to act quickly and directly when an officer is affected by mental illness and to apply up to a specified sum of money due to him for his benefit or the benefit of his family. It is a useful power when, for example, temporarily no one else is entitled to act for the patient or apply money on his behalf. Subsection (3) limits that amount to £100.
The figure was set in 1963 and the Court of Protection considers that £100 is now far too little. The local authority associations share the view that the amount needs to be not only increased, but capable of further variation in future. Accordingly, Amendment No. 626 deletes references to £100 in the Clause and Amendment No. 627 provides for the maximum amount to be not more than £500, or such other sum as may be prescribed. Clause 257 defines "prescribed" in the Bill to mean prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. The amount goes up at once to £500 and could rise further if the Secretary of State made a regulation to that effect.
Amendment No. 628 replaces the wording of lines 22 to 37 with words of a similar effect except for one change which avoids duplication of the power of payment under the Superannuation Act, 1972. This is only a tidying up of drafting.
Amendment No. 629 deals with payments to a deceased officer's estate and, if necessary, the administration of the estate. There is nothing of great substance in the Amendment, but it will make it much easier for the local authorities to assist on these frequently tragic occasions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 627, in page 73, line 40, at end insert:
'more than £500, or such other sum as may be prescribed'.

Orders of the Day — Clause 119

PAYMENTS DUE TO DECEASED OFFICERS

Amendment made: No. 628, in page 74, leave out lines 22 to 37 and insert:
'an officer of a local authority, there is due to him or his legal personal representatives from a local authority a sum not exceeding £500 and not being a pension, allowance or gratuity payable by virtue of section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972, the authority may, without requiring the production of probate or letters of administration of the estate of the officer, pay the whole or any part of that sum to the officer's personal representatives or to the person, or to or among any one or more of any persons, appearing to the authority to be beneficially entitled to the estate of the

officer, and any person to whom such a payment is made, and not the authority, shall be liable to account for the sum paid to him under this subsection'.

No. 629, in page 74, line 43, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

(3) Subsection (1) above shall be included among the provisions with respect to which the Treasury may make an order under section 6(1) of the Administration of Estates (Small Payments) Act 1965, substituting for references to £500 references to such higher amount as may be specified in the order.

(4) Where provision has been made by regulations under section 7(1)(b) of the said Act of 1972 with respect to the pensions, allowances or gratuities which in certain circumstances are to be, or may be, paid to or in respect of any persons or classes of persons, the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the application of the foregoing provisions of this section to such of those persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the regulations.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 120

ACQUISITION OF LAND BY AGREEMENT BY PRINCIPAL COUNCILS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 990, in page 75, line 24, leave out from '31' to end of line 25.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): We can also discuss Amendment 991.

Mr. Page: Amendments 990 and 991 extend to county, district and parish councils the power to over-ride restrictive covenants on due payment of compensation when they acquire land by agreement, in the same way as if the land were being acquired compulsorily. The basis for this provision is that where land is needed for urgent development but is burdened by restrictive covenants, the local authority should not have to go through the process of applying for those to be removed by the Lands Tribunal or perhaps risk an injunction against it for being in breach of the covenants. Parliament has granted similar powers to many authorities in local Acts both to counties and county districts. So far as we know in the Department there is no evidence of any complaint about the use of these powers. I think it is proper now to extend them to the county, district and parish councils when they have a right to acquire land by agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 124

ACQUISITION OF LAND BY AGREEMENT BY PARISH AND COMMUNITY COUNCILS

Amendment made: No. 991, in page 79, line 13, leave out 'sections 4 to 8, 10 and' and insert 'section'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 127

DISPOSAL OF LAND HELD BY PARISHES AND COMMUNITIES

Amendments made: No. 888, in page 82, line 20, leave out 'representative body' and insert 'parish trustees'.

No. 889, in page 82, line 32, leave out 'representative body' and insert 'parish trustees'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 128

CONSENTS TO LAND TRANSACTIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND PROTECTION OF PURCHASERS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment 630, in page 83, line 31, at end insert:
(3) Notwithstanding that principal councils are authorities to whom Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 applies, sections 22, 23 and 26 of that Act (provisions relating to consents required for the exercise of powers of acquisition, appropriation and disposal of land) shall not apply in relation to the exercise by principal councils of powers conferred by this Part of this Act, and in section 29 of that Act (protection of purchasers) references to an authority to whom the said Part II applies shall be construed as though that expression did not include a principal council.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 631.
These Amendments preserve for principal councils the freedom to acquire, appropriate or dispose of land without ministerial consent which existing main councils enjoy, except in certain special situations, by virtue of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959. As drafted, the Bill has the undesired side effect of restoring the control which was abolished by the 1959 Act where the transaction is under an enactment to which Part VII does not apply by virtue

of Clause 131(l)(b) and subsection (2). This was an inadvertent restoration of control when the whole object of the Bill is to remove this type of control from local authorities. It was upsetting to find we had done just the opposite here.
Section 28 of the 1959 Act relieves authorities of the need to obtain this consent in most cases but if the authorities were excluded from the 1959 Act they would again need consent in every case. So we have turned it round the other way by this Amendment and again removed the control under these circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 890 in page 83, line 33 leave out 'representative body' and insert 'parish trustees'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 131

SAVINGS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment 632, in page 84, line 10 leave out 'Subject to subsection (3) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): We can also discuss Amendments 633 and 634.

Mr. Page: The position is that the list of enactments in subsection (2) of Clause 131 which in line 35 includes the Highways Acts, 1959 to 1971, is intended to comprise those in which the powers to deal in land are subject to restrictions which should not be capable of being over-ridden by the use of the land transaction provisions in Part VII of the Bill. We feel that we ought not to include the Highways Act in this exemption list in the Clause, and we are removing that Act because we feel that there will be no conflict between the two powers.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 633, in page 84, leave out line 35.

No. 634, in page 84, line 39 [Clause 131], leave out subsection (3).

No. 891, in page 85, line 9, leave out 'representative body' and insert 'parish trustees'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 134

USE OF SCHOOLROOM, ETC., IN PARISH OR COMMUNITY

Amendment made: No. 892, in page 85, line 20, leave out 'representative body of the parish' and insert 'parish trustees'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 136

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO INCUR EXPENDITURE FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES NOT OTHERWISE AUTHORISED.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 635, in page 88, line 10, leave out from first 'for' to 'shall' and insert 'any area'. I hope that it will be convenient also to deal with Amendment No. 636.
These two Amendments are linked. Subsection (3) of Clause 136 limits the expenditure of a local authority authorised by the Clause to the product of a rate of ½p in the £, or such other amount as may be fixed by an order made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Subsection (7) lays down how the penny rate, by reference to which this limit is determined, should be calculated.
As subsection (7) now stands, this penny rate product is that which would be estimated by the rating authority for the purposes of county or Greater London Council precept purposes. However, for the purposes of the existing provision relating to expenditure otherwise unauthorised, the penny rate product is that prescribed by rules made under Section 113 of the General Rate Act 1967—Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963, as amended by rule 5 of the Rate Product Rules, 1968—and a special penny rate product is laid down for this purpose in that it ignores rate rebates and the Government grant towards rate rebates.
These Amendments accordingly amend Clause 136(7) so that the relevant penny rate product will be one prescribed for the purpose in accordance with rules made under Section 113 of the General Rate Act 1967. This will enable the penny rate not only to be made to correspond with the one applicable now, but also to be made, if desired, to take into account circumstances other than

rate rebates, for example resources available through the rate support grant.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 636, in page 88, line 12, leave out from 'that' to end of line 26 and insert:
'area determined for those purposes in accordance with rules made under section 113(l)(c) of the General Rate Act 1967'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 137

POWERS OF PRINCIPAL COUNCILS WITH RESPECT TO EMERGENCIES OR DISASTERS

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 637, in page 88, line 28, after 'imminent', insert:
'or there is reasonable ground for apprehending such an emergency or disaster'.
I hope that it will be convenient also to deal with Amendments Nos. 638 and 639.
These are all rather different Amendments and I shall explain them separately.
Amendment No. 637 gives a new power to principal authorities enabling them to take action when an emergency or disaster threatens or has occurred. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that a local authority need not necessarily wait until disaster is actually staring it in the face. It might wish to make seamanlike preparations so that action can be taken if disaster occurs. The sort of thing one envisages is oil spillage and possible subsequent pollution of beaches. Maritime authorities may want to arm themselves in advance with the necessary equipment to deal with this kind of situation, and the Amendment would allow them to do so.
On Amendment No. 638, the powers in Clause 137 as at present drafted are additional to the existing powers of local authorities.

4.0 a.m.

The purpose of the Amendment is to define the relationship of the new powers to those which already exist in connection with land drainage and flooding. Paragraph (a) in the Amendment ensures that the powers contained in Clause 137 do not permit a local authority to encroach upon or interfere with the land drainage functions of river authorities in connection with main rivers—which means those


defined watercourses which, in general, constitute the main arterial drainage channels in each local authority area. The Amendment ensures that river authorities retain overall control over works carried out by local authorities under their present powers in the Land Drainage Act, 1961, for the purpose of preventing, remedying or mitigating flooding.

Amendment No. 639, again dealing with emergencies, is to extend the powers for dealing with an emergency or disaster to the City of London, which is not embraced within the expression "principal council" but the City is no more immune from a disaster than anywhere else and there could possibly be an explosion, or an aeroplane crash, in the City of London, and, therefore, clearly it is important that the City should have the same sort of powers as other authorities.

The Amendment has the effect, and I think this is important, of making the powers in the Clause immediately available to existing authorities as from the passing of this Bill—that is to county councils, county borough councils, non-county borough, urban and district councils, the Greater London Council, London borough councils, and the City. If the Clause is justified at all, as I am sure it is, clearly the powers should be available straight away, rather than that they should wait till 1974.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 638, in page 89, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'in' and insert:

Subsection (1) above does not authorise a local authority to execute—
(a) any drainage or other works in any part of a main river, within the meaning of the Land Drainage Act 1930, or of any other watercourse which is treated for the purposes of any of the provisions of that Act as part of a main river, or
(b) any works which local authorities have power to execute under section 34 of the Land Drainage Act 1961 (measures against flooding),
but subject to those limitations, the power conferred by that subsection is.

No. 639, in page 89, line 9, at end insert:
(4) In this section 'principal council' includes the Common Council and, until 1st

April 1974, the council of an existing county, county borough or county district.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 139

INSURANCE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AGAINST ACCIDENTS TO MEMBERS

Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move, Amendment No. 543, in page 89, line 37, after 'member', insert 'or officer'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment can be taken Amendment No. 544, in page 90, line 1, after 'member', insert 'or officer'.

Mr. Johnson: I think I can put this point very shortly to the Under-Secretary. Clause 139, quite reasonably, authorises a local authority to take out insurance against personal accident not only to a member of the authority but to a member of a committee or sub-committee, even if not a member of the authority, provided he is engaged on business of the authority, but, rather surprisingly, nothing whatever is said about similar provision being made for officers of the authority when similarly engaged on business of the authority. I suggest, therefore, that it is desirable that the powers should be extended to enable an authority to cover also officers of the authority. I hope the Under-Secretary will agree.

Mr. Speed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the Amendments, and agree with his sentiments, but I am advised that the Amendments are unnecessary since power to provide allowances to authorities' members of staff, injured, or who die, in the course of their duties, have been granted by Section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1972. Regulations under that Section will be made later this year—I cannot say exactly when, but not too far ahead—to confer powers on local authorities to pay such allowances. The means by which they do so will be a matter for them. It will be open to an authority to provide allowances through insurance if it wishes. That will meet the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Carol Johnson: In view of that reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 141

PROVISION OF INFORMATION, ETC., RELATING TO MATTERS AFFECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, Amendment No. 640, in page 90, line 36, after 'departments', insert:
'or by charities and other voluntary organisations'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment can be taken Amendment No. 641.

Mr. Speed: These Amendments extend the powers given to local authorities under Clause 141 to make available to the public, directly or indirectly, information about the local government or central Government services available in local authorities' areas and to publicise those services by means of films, models, exhibitions and all the other modern marketing techniques. They enable local authorities to use these powers to publicise the work of charities and voluntary organisations within the local authorities' areas. The work of charities and voluntary organisations such as Shelter, the WRVS, the Royal Institute for the Blind, housing Societies often either supplements or complements the work of the local authorities. We think it is sensible to enable local authorities to make known to the public the work of and the services provided by such bodies for the benefit of all the residents living within the area.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Are schools which are registered as charitable institutions for tax purposes included in the definition of "charities"? If they are, there may be wider implications.

Mr. Speed: There could be wider implications. My understanding is that a school would be a registered charity, but I should like notice of that question. There are special considerations for schools. Perhaps I may contact the hon. Gentleman on this before the Bill goes to another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 141

PROVISION OF INFORMATION, ETC., RELATING TO MATTERS AFFECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Amendment made: No. 641, in page 91, line 3, at end add—
(3) In subsection (1) above 'voluntary organisation' means a body which is not a public body but whose activities are carried on otherwise than for profit'—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 142

SUBSCRIPTIONS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATONS

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 642, in page 91, line 6, after 'formed', insert:
'(whether inside or outside the United Kingdom)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It will be convenient to discuss also Amendments No. 643, 651, 653 and 654.

Mr. Speed: In Committee my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development gave a promise, which was welcomed by both sides of the Committee, to ensure that Clause 142 enabled local authorities to pay subscriptions to overseas associations concerned with local government affairs as well as to British associations. Amendment No. 642 will enable local authorities to pay subscriptions and to make other contributions directly to bodies such as the International Union of Local Authorities and the Council of European Municipalities.
We consider that local authorities should be given every opportunity to play their full rôle in European integration. There is need for a much greater interchange of ideas and experience between European local authorities over the services they provide and the problems they face. Amendment No. 642 will enable this to be done.

Amendments Nos. 643 and 644—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman including with Amendment Nos. 642 Amendments Nos. 643 and 644?

Mr. Speed: No, they are not directly related. They relate to the extension of


local authority expenditure on entertainment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the group of Amendments I initially called: Amendments Nos. 642, 643, 651, 653 and 654. I think the hon. Gentleman will know that Amendment No. 644 stands on its own. I propose to call it after this group of Amendments.

Mr. Speed: Amendment No. 643 clarifies the position where a local authority wishes to exercise its powers under Clause 144, which deals with the provision of entertainments outside its area. The Clause as a whole is based on Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948,and replaces it. The Clause, however, contains a number of significant differences from the Section, in the interests of making the powers of local authorities more general and less subject to restrictions.
One of these differences is the omission of the proviso to Section 132(1), whereby the powers to provide entertainments may not be exercised by a local authority outside its own area unless the proposed place is convenient for the residents of the authority providing the entertainment, and the consent is obtained of the authority for the area in which the entertainment is to be provided.
The intention behind this omission is that local authorities should have discretion to exercise the powers in Clause 144 outside their areas. Common sense will prevent a council from itself providing an entertainment in a location which is not convenient for at least some of its residents and electors. But there may be events taking place which the council will wish to support—perhaps a theatre in a regional centre, a regional orchestra or something of that kind. Therefore, a local authority would no longer need to obtain the permission of another, as under the 1948 Act, if it wished, for example, to hire a hall for the provision of entertainment, though any permission which may be required, for example, under planning or licensing laws will continue to be necessary.
Amendment No. 644 removes redundant words from Clause 144(4). Subsection (4) reproduces Section 132(6) of

the Local Government Act, 1948, which safeguards the provisions of enactments requiring licences. The requirement to obtain a licence for the sale of tobacco was abolished by Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1963, and this Amendment tidies up that matter.

Amendment No. 645—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. We are about to go astray. We must stick to the grouping which has been called. It does not include Amendment No. 645. The next Amendment that has been grouped is No. 651. Has the hon. Gentleman finished his explanation of this group?

Mr. Speed: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 144

PROVISION OF ENTERTAINMENTS

Amendments made: No. 643, in page 91, line 25, at end add:
'(whether inside or outside their area)'.

No. 644, in page 92, line 23, leave out 'or tobacco'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 145

TRANSFER OF SECURITIES AND ALTERATION OF AREA, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 972, in page 93, line 18, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 19 and insert:
'means a local authority within the meaning of the 1933 Act, the London Government Act 1939 or this Act or a joint board on which, or a joint committee on which, a local authority or parish meeting are represented, a burial board, a joint burial'.

No. 893, in page 93, line 20, leave out 'representative body' and insert 'parish trustees'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 146

EXPENSES OF PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, Amendment No. 769, in page 94, line 1, leave out 'district' and insert 'principal'.
The Amendment seeks to extend to county councils the power to declare certain expenses to be special and therefore chargeable against part only of the


county area, a power that is provided for the district but not at present for the county. This matter was raised with me by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I raised the matter with the Minister in Committee and we have had some correspondence about it since then.
The Association is still somewhat unhappy about the situation. There was some misunderstanding about the attitude of the Association, and I think that it was a genuine misunderstanding. But it is quite clear that the Association wishes to see this change. Indeed, it is the view of the Association that if the change is not made district councils may very well be inhibited from exercising as fully as they should the concurrent powers which they will be given under the Bill.
In spite of the correspondence we have had, I hope that the Minister will be willing to reconsider this matter, if not now, when it goes to another place. There is no kind of party dispute about a matter of this sort, but if we can get a sensible solution which will benefit everyone, naturally we shall all be pleased.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Speed: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), because he moved his Amendment moderately. There was a short discussion in Committee, as he has said, when my right hon. Friend agreed to look at the matter. He has looked at it and consulted the local authority associations. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the only real demand to extend this power has come from the Association of Municipal Corporations.
The Local Government Act, 1933, provides that expenses of county councils incurred under subsequent Statutes are general unless declared to be special by the particular Statute. In addition, some county council expenses are special by virtue of pre-1933 legislation. Of the other authorities, only rural district councils have special expenses which may be either determined by Statute or declared so by order made by the Secretary of State at the request of the council.
The Bill does not seek to depart from the principle that expenditure should as a general rule be charged over the whole

area of the authority by which it is incurred. The 1933 Act provisions are carried forward by the Bill, however, save that those applicable to rural district councils are extended to all district councils.
The Amendment as drafted would be far-reaching in its effect, since it would apply to the major services such as education and the personal social services. The Departments concerned with these would be strongly opposed to the idea that expenditure on them might be apportioned between different parts of a county. When one thinks about it, one can see the practical problems which might be involved.
I suspect that the AMCs concern in pressing for the Amendment is with those services for which the new county councils and district councils are to have concurrent powers. Under existing legislation such powers are limited mainly to certain planning functions, sport, recreation, etc. Under the Bill they will be extended to cover wider planning functions, footpaths, public conveniences, entertainments, museums and art galleries, for example.
The AMC obviously feels that where a district council has provided and paid for a facility such as a swimming pool and the county council decides to provide a similar facility elsewhere in the county, the district council should not have to pay towards something that it does not need. However, the Amendment would not achieve this object since it would remain within the discretion of the county council whether to charge the expenditure on part of the county. Sporting and other activities to be provided by the county council are clearly likely to be on a regional basis where it would wish to have a general rather than a special spread.
As only the AMC is pressing for the change, I do not believe that the Amendmen would meet the case. Considerable problems would be involved in extending the provisions of the Clause to education and personal social services. I have to advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I accept a good deal of what the Minister has said. This is just another example of the maze that the Bill is and, I fear, will prove to be in operation and administration. I


appreciate some of the difficulties in this matter and I do not propose to press it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 645, in page 94, line 24, after 'chargeable', insert 'only'.
This is a drafting Amendment. The language in line 24 is being brought into line with earlier references in the Clause—for example, page 93, line 34.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 152

APPLICATION OF CAPITAL MONEY ON DISPOSAL OF LAND

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1059, in page 97, line 1, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections 123(6) and'.
The Clause states the general rule for disposal of capital money received by a local authority from disposal of land. As drafted it contains a saving provision for Clause 127(4), which contains a special provision for charitable land disposed of by a parish or community council. The Amendment introduces a parallel saving reference to Clause 123(6), which is a parallel provision for charitable land disposed of by a principal council.
Clause 123(6) was inserted in Standing Committee and I regret to say that the need to insert a cross-reference in Clause 152 escaped notice. The Amendment remedies the situation.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 153

REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS OF AUDIT

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 320, in page 97, line 16, leave out from 'audited' to end of line 20 and insert:
'in accordance with this Part of this Act by either a district auditor or an approved auditor'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following Government Amendments:

No. 992–999; No. 322–333; No. 335–353; No. 356–364; No. 366–378; No. 1004; No. 1116–117.
It will also be convenient to take the following Amendments:
In the name of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), No. 251, in page 98, line 39, at end insert 'and'.
No. 252, in page 98, line 41, leave out from 'principles' to end of line 3 on page 99.
In the name of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan), No. 880, in page 99, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
In the name of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), to sub-Amendments to Amendment No. 367, to leave out 'six' and insert 'eight'.

Mr. Speed: It may be convenient to the House if I outline what is intended by this important part of the Bill dealing with accounts and audit. Many of the Amendments are detailed. Some are consequential.
The provisions in the Bill as at present drafted about audit broadly preserve the present position under which certain authorities may choose between the district auditor and private auditors of some of their accounts whilst other authorities have no such discretion. It was announced in Committee that the Government believed that, subject to certain conditions, this anomalous situation should be ended and that appropriate Amendments would be moved at a later stage. This excited right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. Although the Amendments we are now making and the code of practice which has been published go some way towards meeting some of the objections of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, nevertheless there is a deep and philosophical gulf between us on this issue which, I suspect, will not be bridged tonight.
The Amendments accordingly provide—first, that the option to choose between the district auditor and private auditors should be extended to all county and district councils for all their accounts; second, that district councils should choose an auditor, district or private, for the parishes in their district; and, third, that London authorities, which are at present audited by the district auditor,


should be able to change to a private auditor if they so choose. There will be some delay before they can do this. Principal councils will be able to choose different auditors for different sections of their accounts.
In order to ensure that standards appropriate for the audit of public funds are maintained it is proposed that appointments of private auditors will require the approval of the Secretary of State. They are accordingly referred to in the Amendments as "approved auditor". The Secretary of State will be empowered to withdraw his approval, and the work of approved auditors will therefore be reviewed on the same basis as the work of district auditors is at present reviewed. The object of the review will be to ensure the maintenance of standards. There will be no question of interference in the exercise by the auditor of his professional skill and judgment in the conduct of the audit. In order that auditors may know the standards they are expected to meet, a code of practice has been prepared in consultation with the professional accountancy bodies and the local authority associations. This was published on 12th April and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
As a further measure to ensure the maintenance of satisfactory standards of auditing, the Amendments provide for the Secretary of State to prescribe recommended fees. These will take the form of a scale of minimum fees, with provision for flexibility in particular cases. Authorities will be free to pay more than the minimum fee if they so wish. It is an essential part of the arrangements that there is to be a single system of audit. Whether the accounts are audited by a district auditor or an approved auditor, the general duties of the auditor are to be the same, and the accounts will be subject to the same special safeguards in respect of illegality and misconduct and the rights of electors, though the machinery by which they are operated will be different. For accounts audited by approved auditors, the special safeguards will be operated where necessary through the procedure of an extraordinary audit.
The Amendments, therefore, eliminate the concept of two different systems of audit which has been the situation up

to now and which appears in the Bill in its present form, and make it clear that the choice to be exercised by local authorities and other bodies is the choice of an auditor rather than a choice of system. Up to now they have had a choice of system as well as a choice of auditor. What should be made clear even at this stage, since I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite will be concerned about this, is the number of local authorities, county boroughs and non-county boroughs, which up to now have had professional auditing of their accounts rather than using the district auditor. Such places as Birmingham, Blackburn, Bradford, Coventry, Dewsbury, Derby, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Grimsby, Hull, St. Helens, Salford, South Shields and Wigan among others—not many of these, are necessarily Conservative strongholds—have in the past used a professional rather than a district auditor.
One thing I should make clear is that this is in no way anti-district auditors. One of the first things I did when I took my present position was to meet the chief auditor and a number of his senior colleagues, the district auditors, and a very agreeable and professional bunch of people I found them. Certainly it is in no way the intention of the Government that this dedicated body of skilled men should be cut back, as was suggested early in the morning in the Committee stage when the bombshell burst upon the Committee.
Amendment No. 320 paves the way for all these subsequent Amendments which impinge upon this point. The Amendments extend a choice of auditor to all local authorities and lay down general rules for the appointment and removal of auditors. Clause 153 is being completely re-written, as my hon. Friend told the Committee it would have to be.
Subsection (1) provides that the accounts of all local authorities and joint committees shall be audited by either a district auditor or an approved auditor. The latter term is defined in Amendment No. 364 as an auditor qualified under Clause 162(2) and whose appointment is approved by the Secretary of State.
Subsection (2)(a) provides that district and county councils are to determine before 1st January, 1974 that their


accounts shall be audited either by the district auditor or by an auditor appointed by the council. An auditor appointed by the council must have one of the qualifications set out in Clause 162, and his appointment will not be effective unless it is approved by the Secretary of State under that Clause.
Subsection (2)(b) repeats the existing law by which authorities in London are all audited by district auditors. It is to be noted, however, that under subsection (3) London authorities, like others, will be able, subject to the requirements of subsections (6) to (8), to resolve that their accounts shall not be audited by the district auditor but shall instead be audited by an approved auditor; but this will be at a later date.
Subsection (2)(c) provides that district councils should, before 1st January, 1974, choose whether parish councils and meetings and community councils in their district should be audited by the district auditor or an auditor appointed by the district council, who would be subject to the conditions of Clause 162 as to qualification and approval. This was criticised by the right hon. Gentleman but we believe that it would not be administratively practicable for each parish to choose its own auditor. Districts will, no doubt, consult the parishes collectively before choosing the auditor for parishes, who need not be the same as the auditor for the district.
Subsection (2)(d) makes provision for joint committees of principal councils outside Greater London to choose their auditor in the same way as do the councils. The choice is to be made not later than six weeks after the committee is established.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) objected to the wording of paragraph (c) in Clause 156—this point is taken up in his Amendments Nos. 251 and 252, and repeated in further Amendments in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan)—and we undertook to look again at the wording of that Clause. Hon. Members will see that Amendment No. 327 meets that point. We have removed the offending words of which complaint was made and brought in words which, I think, are more appropriate.
We believe that freedom of choice for local authorities in auditing, provided that the audits are subject to clearly defined and compatible rules, is something which should be brought in by the Bill. We accept that there are fundamental differences between the two sides of the House about it. We believe that the private sector has an important part to play, and not to the detriment of the district auditors, who have done, and will do, a good job.
The question we have to consider in this local government reorganisation is whether we are to have a choice, and, second, whether we shall have uniformly high standards of audit. We believe that the answer on both counts is "Yes". We do not consider that it would be appropriate to remove the private element of auditing, which, apparently, is what the Opposition wish to do. We are not being dogmatic or ideological about it, and I commend our Amendments to the House.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. John Roper: The Under-Secretary of State referred to the debate in Committee on 15th February which formed the trailer to this debate. On both occasions, we have had to discuss these matters in the early hours of the morning, and I think it highly unfortunate that this part of the Bill, which makes an important change on which there is a good deal of controversy, should have to be considered at this sort of hour.
Speaking in Committee, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) gave some indication of the Government's thinking. Since 11th May, we have had a code of practice in the Library and we have read it carefully. Having seen the code of practice, and having heard the Minister, I am as unconvinced now as I was when his hon. Friend addressed the Committee. There is no good reason for the substantial change in local government audit practice which the Government now propose.
Following the Municipal Corporations Act, 5, when boroughs were given certain rights, and the old elective audit under which the ratepayers could elect their auditors, it has been necessary, in 1884 and subsequently, to maintain the possibility of private audit for certain accounts of boroughs. But the Bill ought to have standardised local government


auditing on the basis of the successful district audit.
The only reason for the Government's Amendments is that they put into effect a piece of political chicanery and ideological prejudice in the dismantling of an important part of the public sector to provide jobs and fees for private accountants. The Opposition are fundamentally opposed to the change. We believe that the Government are making a serious mistake in removing from local government the guarantee of effective specialist independent audit which, I believe, is an essential guarantee for every ratepayer.
In the past, the independence of the district auditor and the district audit staff has been clear. The approved auditor, as he is to be called—that is, the private auditor—is a contractor to the authority; he can be sacked if he does not provide the results that are wanted. A misleading analogy is sometimes drawn with the arrangement in a public company, where a private auditor may be appointed. But in that situation the private auditor is not appointed by the board, the equivalent of the council and the officers; he is appointed by the shareholders, and he reports to them.
In this case it is not the ratepayers who appoint the private auditor; it is the council which appoints the person to audit its own accounts. There seems to me to be a much stronger case for a completely independent auditing service, as would be provided by the district auditor for the local authority, than there is for a public company. At least the shareholder can sell his shares if he is not satisfied. Local authority ratepayers have to pay their rates whether or not satisfied with the council and the audit, and it therefore seems essential that the ratepayer should have a guarantee of an independent audit, as would be provided under the district audit.
In spite of what the Under-Secretary said, if the Amendment is made it will present a permanent threat to the future of the district audit service. The service has proved itself to be a specialist body in these matters. Instead of giving the service the opportunity to develop to the full, the Amendments will give the job to the general practitioner in accountancy, to the private auditor who does not have

the necessary specialist knowledge and experience.
A county borough in my constituency which was previously audited on a private basis but switched only two years ago to the district audit service found that the service was able to provide a specialist and much more satisfactory audit.
Also there will be a problem of the morale of the district audit service should the Amendment be carried. What consultation has the Under-Secretary held with the professional trade union representing the district audit staff—the Institution of Professional Civil Servants? There may be fears that the future of the service will be threatened in two ways. At one end the private accountants, the would-be approved accountants, would buy in some of the senior district auditors to provide them with the expertise to enable them to win approval by the Secretary of State in the same way that senior inspectors of the Inland Revenue are bought in from time to time. On the other hand, there will be an inevitable reluctance on the part of young people to go into a service -which has such an uncertain future.
In those ways I think the whole morale of this important part of the public service will be seriously threatened. It will be extremely difficult to calculate future demand on the services of the district auditing staff and it will therefore be extremely difficult to calculate the future demand on the service and it will be equally difficult to plan staff accordingly.
There is even a danger, if there were a swing in the political balance and, therefore, of the political control of local authorities, that there could be a significant reduction in the demand for the services of the district audit service. It would not be a satisfactory system if the choice of audit became a political football.
We could spend a great deal of time considering the Amendments in detail, and among the points I wish to raise is one relating to the code of practice. What is the current status of the code? Is the document which was put into the Library on 11th May a draft or is it the final and permanent form? Who has been consulted about it? The Under-Secretary mentioned accountancy bodies, but was, for example, the Institute of Municipal


Treasurers and Accountants consulted? Was the Institution of Professional Civil Servants consulted about it?
Why does Amendment No. 343 remove from Clause 159 subsection (3) dealing with interim audits? With reference to Amendment No. 344, can the Minister explain how Clause160 will now stand, and whether approved auditors, the private auditors, will have the power to refer matters to the court? If not, is there an incentive to the local authority not to use the district auditor, and thereby avoid the risk of a reference to the court if it has made a mistake?
I turn next to Amendment No. 367 to Clause 161, and the scale of minimum fees. I understand that the local authority can pay as much as it likes, and that all that the Secretary of State will do is to set out the minimum fees. Is the same scale of fees to apply both for the district audit staff and for the approved auditors, or will district audit staff be tied to the scale of fees, with the minimum applying only to the private approved auditors?
My next question concerns Amendment No. 367 to Clause 162, giving details of the period of notice which must be given when a local authority wishes to change from one form of audit to another. Why have the Government chosen the period of six weeks? My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has tabled two sub-Amendments suggesting that it should be extended to eight weeks.
When will the London boroughs be allowed to change? It is surprising that in 1963 when a Conservative Administration introduced the London Government Act, and when the whole question of auditing local authority accounts was considered, a decision was rightly taken that the proper way for local authority auditing to be done was by the district audit service. I wonder why there has been a change between 1963 and 1972.
We on this side of the House feel that the Amendments are not local government reform in any sense of improvement. They are a disastrous step backwards for the control of local government finance. They have been introduced purely as a piece of party dogma to dismantle an essential part of the public service.
If the Government insist on pressing the Amendments, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to go into the Lobby to oppose them.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I have a rather detailed question on Amendment No. 337, which deals with the methods by which a local government elector can make representations to an auditor. Subsection (2) of the Amendment says:
At the request of a local government elector for any area to which those accounts relate, the auditor shall give the elector or any representative of his an opportunity to question the auditor about the accounts.
Subsection (3) of the Amendment says:
If the audit is conducted by a district auditor, any local government elector for any area to which those accounts relate, or any representative of his, may attend before the auditor and make objections to any of those accounts.
Why in the one case can the elector only question the auditor about the accounts and in the other make objection? What is the difference in powers between the two in relation to the objection or questioning that may occur?

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Speed: The minimum fee will be the minimum for both the approved auditor and the district auditor, and both can be paid more.
I turn to the question asked by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell). Clause 158(2) gives local government electors a new right to question the auditor about the accounts, whether he is a district auditor or an approved auditor. This is to enable an elector to clarify points of doubt and understanding before considering further action. Subsection (3) applies only to audits conducted by the district auditor. It reproduces the effect of the existing subsection (1)(b), giving the elector the right to make a formal objection to the accounts.
Under the 1933 Act, the electors had a right of objection at the audit of accounts subject to the district audit, but no corresponding right with other audits. Here, in the case of objection there is a judicial function with right of appeal to the courts, and it is not appropriate that approved auditors should exercise such a function. However, we propose that electors should have equivalent rights, whether the auditor is a district auditor or


an approved auditor, and this is done by subsection (4), establishing equivalent rights by providing for application to the Secretary of State to direct an extraordinary audit under Clause 163.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Subsection (2) refers to "the auditor". I gather that he can be either the district auditor or the approved auditor.

Mr. Speed: The words refer to the auditor whether he be the district auditor or the approved auditor.
The code of practice will be advising the Secretary of State and, no doubt, the accountancy profession and all concerned. All the local authority associations were consulted about it, together with the various professional accountancy bodies, the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. My right hon. Friend informed the Institution of Professional Civil Servants of the Government's proposals and had a number of meetings with the Association of District Auditors and its officers.
I reject what the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) said about morale, having met and discussed various matters with the district auditors. There will, however, be one genuine problem for both district and approved auditors. Much of their work at the moment is concerned with the smaller authorities. I say it with no disrespect to the smaller authorities, but they have particular problems in their accounts and this involves a considerable amount of work. Some of the small boroughs and smaller county district councils as new districts will on the whole be part of larger councils, sometimes employing more highly qualified and more extensive staff. This may reduce the work load both on district auditors and approved auditors. This is more likely to be a significant factor on the work load than the new option which we are introducing for all the local authorities. The code is final but can be amended in the light of experience, although we have no reason to believe at the moment that there are many essential problems.
There will be a delay for London until 1st April, 1976. The choice will be available to the Greater London Council and the London boroughs from that date because we feel that with massive changes

occurring throughout the rest of England and Wales up to then, it would be reasonable to allow a further two years for the GLC and the London boroughs to make the change if they wish.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the London Government Act, 1963. This point was dealt with by my right hon. Friend in Committee. That Act was passed nine years ago, long before either the hon. Gentleman or I was here, but in the circumstances of today, where one has reorganised the whole of local government and where one will soon be reorganising local government finance to coincide with, it seems just to have a uniform standard of auditing and to give an option to local authorities to have either approved auditors or district auditors.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the six or eight weeks delay. We believe that six weeks is more appropriate in this situation; and that it will be important that there should not be undue delay. We must choose a period which will clearly coincide with, and possibly cut across, two council meetings, as that period of time does, by looking at the pressure which the local authorities will be under. That is why we have chosen that period.
The question of the extraordinary audit has, I think, been dealt with to a certain extent by my reply to the hon. Member for Itchen.
I will sum up. There is no question of bad morale among district auditors. There was consultation with all professional bodies. My right hon. Friend had discussions with the district auditors and we have had full discussions with all local authorities. The code of practice is a firm code, but it can be amended in the light of any requirement that may be needed later. I do not envisage a great diminution in the services of the district auditors; or that there will be widespread poaching—death by a thousand cuts, as it were—from district auditors by private auditors. Amendment No. 343 is not needed because Amendment No. 338 provides a general power to have a report at any time during the audit.
With respect, it is the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends who have been ideological. They have talked of restoring freedom and giving a choice


to local authorities. We are not trying to destroy one system but are trying to ensure a new, highly qualified system of auditing of local authority accounts, and we are giving local authorities a choice. There is no question of its being a football to be bandied about as local authorities change, because in the code of practice we have provided that, normally, once the auditor is approved, whether district or approved, there will have to be exceptional circumstances before he can be changed under five years, so that if local authorities do not like what the auditor is doing they cannot just dismiss him peremptorily but only with the approval of the Secretary of State. The auditor can get the experience necessary, and will have that continuity which is important both for the private sector and for the district auditors. The five-year built-in period will meet the political football point.
I hope that the House, having heard the explanation and having thought carefully about it, and knowing that in the past over 60 county boroughs and well over

Division No. 299.]
AYES
[4.54 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gummer, Selwyn
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Scott, Nicholas


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Biffen, John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Sharples, Sir Richard


Bowden, Andrew
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Bray, Ronald
Kinsey, J. R.
Speed, Keith


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Knox, David
Spence, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor


Carlisle, Mark
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Trew, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Dame Joan


Clegg, Walter
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Cockeram, Eric
Mather, Carol
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Crouch, David
Moate, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fidler, Michael
Morrison, Charles
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue, Tim
Murton, Oscar
Woodnutt, Mark


Fox, Marcus
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)



Gibson-Watt, David
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Redmond, Robert
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Gray, Hamish
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Hugh Rossi


Green, Alan




NOES


Blenkinsop, Arthur
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Oakes, Gordon



Deakins, Eric
Roper, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John Golding

Question accordingly agreed to.

5.0 a.m.

Amendment made: No. 992, in page 97, line 21, leave out from the beginning to end of line 13 on page 98 and insert—
'(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section—

100 boroughs have found that the private sector has served them well, will conclude that we have tried to improve standards and to ensure that local authorities have a choice. I therefore reject the charges of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends and hope that the House will endorse the Government's decision and will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Roper: By leave of the House, we believe that this is a step backwards, away from developing a unified and independent auditing service for local government. For those reasons, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby against the Amendments. We must reserve our position about this serious change in the auditing system for local government and in future consider whether it is not appropriate to have one auditing service for local government to act in an independent way based on the district audit.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 14.

(a) the accounts of a county council or district council shall be audited either by the district auditor or by an auditor appointed by the council, according as the council shall determine by resolution passed before 1st January 1974;
(b) the accounts of the Greater London Council, of a London borough council or of a joint committee of either the Greater


London Council and one or more London borough councils or the councils of two or more London boroughs shall be audited by the district auditor;
(c) the accounts of a parish council, parish meeting or community council or of a joint committee of the councils of two or more parishes or communities, both or all of which are situated in the same district, shall be audited either by the district auditor or by an auditor appointed by the council of the district in which the parish or community is, or the parishes or communities are, situated according as that district council shall deter mine by resolution passed before 1st January 1974; and
(d) the accounts of any joint committee to which subsection (1) above applies but which does not fall within paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) above shall be audited either by the district auditor or by an auditor appointed by the committee, according as the committee shall determine by resolution passed not later than six weeks after the committee is established;
but a resolution under this subsection providing for any accounts to be audited by an auditor appointed by a council or committee shall be of no effect unless the appointment is approved by the Secretary of State under section 162 below.

(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in any case where, by virtue of subsection (2) above or subsection (4) below, any accounts are audited by the district auditor, the body which resolved that the accounts should be so audited or, in the case of any accounts falling within subsection (2)(b) above, the body whose accounts they are, may by resolution passed before 1st October in any year determine that, for the financial year beginning on 1st April next following and for subsequent financial years, those accounts shall not be so audited but shall instead be audited by an auditor appointed by the body:

Provided that no resolution under this subsection with respect to any accounts falling within subsection (2)(b) above shall have effect for a financial year beginning before 1st April 1976.

(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in any case where by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection (3) above and section 162 below, any accounts are audited by an approved auditor, the body which appointed him may by a resolution passed before 1st October in any year determine that, for the financial year beginning on 1st April next following and for subsequent financial years, those accounts shall not be so audited but shall instead be audited either by the district auditor or by a different auditor appointed by the body.

(5) A resolution of a principal council under subsection (2)(a), subsection (3) or subsection (4) above may make different provision in relation to different accounts of the council or (in the case of a resolution under subsection (3) or subsection (4) above) may apply only to such of the council's accounts as may be specified in the resolution.

(6) A resolution of a body under subsection (3) or subsection (4) above shall not be effective to terminate the appointment of the person (whether the district auditor or an approved auditor) who at the time the resolution is passed is the auditor of the accounts concerned unless—
(a) notice of the intention to move the resolution has been given to him not less than one month before the meeting at which it is moved; and
(b) not more than six weeks after the resolution is passed the Secretary of State has notified the body of his approval of the resolution under subsection (8) below;
and the appointment of another auditor, other than the district auditor, by virtue of such a resolution shall be of no effect unless the appointment is approved by the Secretary of State under section 162 below.

(7) Where notice is served on an auditor under paragraph (a) of subsection (6) above—
(a) the body concerned shall have regard to any representations in writing made to them by the auditor at any time before the date of the meeting at which the resolution is to be moved; and
(b) the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations in writing made to him by the auditor at any time not later than two weeks after the resolution is passed.

(8) Where a body has passed a resolution under subsection (3) or subsection (4) above with respect to any accounts they shall send a copy of the resolution to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State shall notify them in writing whether or not he approves the resolution.

(9) In any case where an approved auditor gives notice in writing to the body who appointed him to audit any accounts that he wishes to resign his appointment on completion of the audit of those accounts for a particular financial year—
(a) the power of the body to pass a resolution under subsection (4) above to replace the approved auditor shall be exercisable as if in that subsection for the words "before 1st October in any year" there were substituted the words "within six weeks of the receipt by them of a notice under subsection (9) below";
(b) subsection (6) above, except so far as it relates to the appointment of a new auditor, and subsections (7) and (8) above shall not apply in relation to such resolution; and
(c) a copy of any such resolution shall be sent to the Secretary of State together with a copy of the notice given to the body by the approved auditor.

(10) If it appears to the Secretary of State that, with respect to any accounts falling within subsection (1) above—
(a) no resolution relating to the audit of the accounts has been passed under any of the paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of subsection (2) above, or


(b) for any other reason neither the district auditor nor an aproved auditor is for the time being appointed to audit the accounts, or
(c) the approved auditor who is for the time being appointed to audit the accounts is for any reason unable or unwilling to act,
he may direct that, with respect to such financial year as may be specified in the direction, the accounts shall be audited by the district auditor; and where such a direction is given the provisions of this section and the following provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect as if the body concerned had resolved that for that financial year the accounts should be audited by the district auditor'.—[ Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 154

YEARLY ACCOUNTS

Amendments made: No. 322, in page 98, line 15, leave out '(whether subject to district or private audit)'.

No. 323, in page 98, line 16, leave out 'subject to district audit' and insert 'required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 155

DISTRICT AUDITORS

Amendments made: No. 324, in page 98, line 21, leave out from 'necessary' to 'and' in line 22 and insert:
'for the purpose of auditing accounts required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act'.

No. 325, in page 98, line 25 leave out from 'in' to 'to' in line 26 and insert 'this Part of this Act'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 156

GENERAL DUTIES OF DISTRICT AUDITOR

Amendments made: No. 326, in page 98, line 33, leave out from 'accounts' to 'auditor' in line 34 and insert:
'required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act, an'.

No. 327, in page 98, line 40, leave out from the beginning to end of line 3 on page 99 and insert:
(b) proper accounting practices have been observed in the compilation of the accounts;
and the auditor shall be under a duty to consider whether, in the public interest, he should make a report on any matters arising out of or in connection with the accounts, in order that those matters may be considered by the

body concerned or brought to the attention of the public.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 157

FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND DISTRICT AUDITOR'S RIGHT OF ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS

Amendments made: No. 328, in page 99, line 4, leave out 'A district' and substitute 'An'.

No. 329, in page 99, line 5, leave out from 'all' to 'appear' in line 7 and insert:
'such documents relating to the accounts of a body whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act as'.

No. 330, in page 99, line 14, at end insert 'and produce any such documents'.

No. 331, in page 99, line 16, leave out from 'are' to 'shall' and insert:
'required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act'.

No. 332, in page 99, line 17, after 'facility', insert 'and all information'.

No. 333, in page 99, line 20, leave out 'a district' and insert 'an'.

No. 993, in page 99, line 24, leave out subsection (4) and insert:

'(4) Any expenses incurred by an auditor in connection with proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection (3) above alleged to have been committed in relation to the accounts of any body shall, so far as not recovered from any other source, be recoverable from that body.

(5) If an approved auditor discloses to any person any information obtained by him in the course of auditing any accounts under this Part of this Act he shall, unless the disclosure is made in the course of performing his functions under this Part of this Act, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 158

PUBLIC INSPECTION OF ACCOUNTS AND RIGHT OF OBJECTION

Amendments made: No. 335, in page 99, line 30, leave out 'a district auditor' and insert:
'an auditor under this Part of this Act'.

No. 336, in page 99, line 32, leave out 'documents' and insert:
'books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts'.

No. 337, in page 99, line 33, leave out from 'and' to end of line 44 and insert:
'those other documents.

(2) At the request of a local government elector for any area to which those accounts relate, the auditor shall give the elector or any representative of his an opportunity to question the auditor about the accounts.

(3) If the audit is conducted by a district auditor, any local government elector for any area to which those accounts relate, or any representative of his, may attend before the auditor and make objections to any of those accounts.

(4) If the audit is conducted by an approved auditor, any such local government elector as is referred to in subsection (3) above may make an application to the Secretary of State requesting him to direct a district auditor to hold an extraordinary audit of the accounts under section 163 below'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 159

DISTRICT AUDITOR'S REPORT

Amendments made: No. 338, in page 100, line 1, leave out 'Within' and insert 'Not later than'.

No. 339, in page 100, line 2, leave from second 'of' to 'send' in line 5 and insert also'.
a body whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act the auditor shall send any report of his on the audited accounts under section 156 above to the body, or in the case of a parish meeting, to the chairman, and shall'.

No. 340, in page 100, line 6, leave out from second 'the' to 'body' in line 7.

No. 341, in page 100, line 8, leave out 'thereafter' and insert 'after they have received it'.

No. 342, in page 100, line 9, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 12 and insert:
The agenda supplied to the members of a body for the meeting of the body at which they take into consideration a report of an auditor sent to them under subsection (1) above'.

No. 343, in page 100, line 17, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 160

POWER OF DISTRICT AUDITOR AND THE COURT

Amendments made: No. 344, in page 100, line 20, leave out from 'Where' to 'that' in line 21 and insert:

'the audit of any accounts under this Part of this Act is carried out by a district auditor and it appears to him'.

No. 345, in page 100, line 27, leave out from 'declaration' to end of line 38 and insert:

then, subject to subsection (3) below, it may also—
(a) order that any person responsible for incurring or authorising any expenditure declared unlawful shall repay it in whole or in part to the body in question and, where two or more persons are found to be responsible, that they shall be jointly and severally liable to repay it as aforesaid; and
(b) if any such expenditure exceeds £2,000 and the person responsible for incurring or authorising it is a member of a local authority, order him to be disqualified for being a member of a local authority for a specified period; and
(c) order rectification of the accounts.

(3) The court shall not make an order under subsection (2)(a) or (b) above if the court is satisfied that the person responsible for incurring or authorising any such expenditure acted reasonably or in the belief that the expenditure was authorised by law, and in any other case shall have regard to all the circumstances, including that person's means and ability to repay that expenditure or any part of it'.

No. 346, in page 100, line 39, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 40 and insert:
'the audit of any accounts under this Part of this Act is conducted by a district auditor and it appears to him'.

No. 347, in page 100, line 42, after 'included', insert:
'and that the failure has not been sanctioned by the Secretary of State'.

No. 348, in page 101, line 1, after 'incurred', insert 'or deficiency caused'.

No. 349, in page 101, line 4, after 'loss', insert 'or deficiency'.

No. 350, in page 101, line 5, leave out 'local authority, committee or other'.

No. 996, in page 101, line 8, at end insert:
'and if a district auditor certifies under this subsection that any sum or amount is due from two or more persons, they shall be jointly and severally liable for that sum or amount'.

No. 351, in page 101, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert:

(4) Any person who—
(a) has made an objection under section 158(3) above and is aggrieved by a decision of a district auditor not to apply for a declaration under subsection (1) above or not to certify under subsection (3) above


that a sum or amount is due from another person, or
(b) is aggrieved by a decision of a district auditor to certify under subsection (3) above that a sum or amount is due from him,
may, not later than six weeks after he has been notified of the decision, require the district auditor to state in writing the reasons for his decision.

No. 352, in page 101, line 18, leave out 'A person' and insert:
'Any such person who is'.

No. 353, in page 101, line 19, after
'and', insert '(a)'

No. 997, in page 101, line 22, at end insert:

'(b) in the case of a decision to certify that any sum or amount is due from any person, the court may confirm, vary or quash the decision and give any certificate which the auditor could have given;
(c) in the case of a decision not to certify that any sum or amount is due from any person, the court may confirm the decision or quash it and give any certificate which the auditor could have given;

and any certificate given under paragraph (b) or (c) above shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (3) above and the following provisions of this section as if it had been given by the auditor under subsection (3) above.

(5A) If a certificate under this section relates to a loss or deficiency caused by the wilful misconduct of any person who is a member of a local authority and the amount certified to be due from him exceeds £2,000, that person shall be disqualified for being a member of a local authority for the period of five years beginning on the ordinary date on which the period allowed for bringing an appeal against the decision to give the certificate expires, or, if such an appeal is brought, the date on which the appeal is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails for non-prosecution'.

No. 998, in page 101, line 29, leave out from second 'any' to 'and' in line 31 and insert:
sum or amount due from any person under this section, a certificate signed by a district auditor stating that that sum or amount is due from a person specified in the certificate to a body so specified shall be conclusive evidence of that fact'.

No. 356, in page 101, line 39, leave out subsection (9).

No. 357, in page 102, line 2, leave out from 'of' to 'body' in line 3 and insert 'a'.

No. 358, in page 102, line 7, after 'application', insert 'or appeal'.

No. 994, in page 102, line 11, leave out from 'body' to 'shall' in line 15.

No. 359, in page 102, line 20, at end insert 'or amount'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 161

FEES FOR DISTRICT AUDITS

Amendments made: No. 360, in page 102, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 26 and insert 'The Secretary of State shall prescribe recommended fees'.

No. 361, in page 102, line 27, leave out from 'accounts' to end of line 33 and insert:

'which are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act, and, in respect of any particular audit, the Secretary of State may, after consulting the auditor appointed to carry out the audit and the body whose accountants are to be audited, fix a fee higher or lower than the recommended fee applicable to that audit.

(2) A body whose accounts are audited in accordance with this Part of this Act shall pay—
(a) to the Secretary of State, if the audit is carried out by the district auditor, and
(b) to the auditor concerned, if the audit is carried out by an approved auditor,
the fee, if any, fixed for the audit under subsection (1) above, or if no fee is so fixed, either the recommended fee applicable to the audit or such higher fee as appears to the body to be appropriate in the circumstances'. No. 362, in page 102, line 34, leave out "fixing the scale of" and insert "prescribing recommended".

No. 363, in page 102, line 37, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 162

PRIVATE AUDIT

Amendments made: No. 364, in page 103, line 1, leave out from "a" to end of line 7 and insert:
body are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act and a person, other that the district auditor, is appointed to carry out the audit, his appointment shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act unless particulars of the appointment are sent to the Secretary of State and the appointment is approved by him under this section; and in this Part of this Act "approved auditor" means an auditor who is qualified under subsection (2) below and whose appointment is so approved by the Secretary of State".

No. 999, in page 103, line 8, leave out from "qualified" to second "of" in line 9, and insert:
for the purposes of subsection (1) above if, and only if, he is a member, or a firm all the persons wherein are members, of one or more".

No. 366, in page 103, line 14, leave out "and Corporate".

No. 367, in page 103, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert:

(3) The Secretary of State shall not withhold his approval of the appointment of any person as auditor of any accounts under this Part of this Act unless he is not satisfied—
(a) that the person concerned has the experience, staff and facilities necessary for carrying out an efficient audit of those accounts, or
(b) that the terms of his appointment are appropriate to the appointment of an auditor to audit those accounts.

(4) Where particulars of an appointment have been sent to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above, he shall, after considering the matters referred to in paragraph (a) and (b) of subsection (3) above, give notice in writing to the body which made the appointment stating whether or not he approves the appointment; and in any case where the Secretary of State notifies a body that he does not approve an appointment made by them, the body shall proceed to make a new appointment or may, instead, resolve that the accounts concerned shall be audited by a district auditor and, within the period of six weeks beginning with the receipt by them of the notification, or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow, either particulars of the new appointment shall be sent to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above or, as the case may require, a copy of the resolution providing for the audit of the accounts by the district auditor shall be sent to the Secretary of State.

(5) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the appointment of an approved auditor for any accounts shall continue to be effective for succeeding financial years unless a resolution determining that the accounts shall no longer be audited by him is passed and approved under section 153 above; and in any such case his appointment shall cease except with respect to the accounts of the financial year in which the resolution is passed and any preceding financial year in respect of which his appointment was effective.

(6) If at any time after the appointment of an auditor has been approved by the Secretary of State under this section the Secretary of State ceases to be satisfied with respect to any of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State may,—
(a) after giving not less than one month's notice in writing to the approved auditor and to the body who appointed him informing them that the Secretary of State is considering the revocation of his approval, and
(b) after considering any representations made to him by the auditor or that body,
give notice in writing to the auditor and the body who appointed him that the approval

of the auditor's appointment is withdrawn; and on the receipt of such a notice by the body concerned the auditor's appointment shall terminate.

(7) For the purpose of assisting the Secretary of State in considering whether he should approve a person's appointment as auditor under subsection (3) above or whether he should exercise his power under subsection (6) above to withdraw his approval of an auditor's appointment, the body to whose accounts the appointment relates shall, if requested to do so by him, make available for inspection on behalf of the Secretary of State the accounts concerned and such other documents relating to them as might reason ably be required by an auditor for the purpose of auditing the accounts.

(8) If any of the following events occurs, namely—

(a) an approved auditor dies or ceases to be qualified under subsection (2) above, or
(b) the appointment of an approved auditor is terminated by agreement between himself and the body who appointed him (but otherwise than as mentioned in section 153(9) above), or by virtue of a notification by the Secretary of State of the withdrawal of his approval under subsection (6) above,

the body which appointed the auditor shall proceed to make a new appointment or may, instead, resolve that the accounts concerned shall be audited by the district auditor and, within the period of six weeks beginning with the event in question or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow, either particulars of the new appointment shall be sent to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above or, as the case may require, a copy of the resolution providing for the audit of the accounts by the district auditor shall be sent to the Secretary of State.

(9) Without prejudice to subsection (5) above the appointment of an approved auditor under subsection (8) above or a resolution under that subsection providing for the district auditor to audit any accounts shall have effect with respect to the accounts for the financial year in which the appointment is made or, as the case may be, the resolution is passed, and for any preceding financial year in respect of which the approved auditor referred to in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (8) above did not complete the audit of the accounts concerned.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 163

EXTRAORDINARY AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS SUBJECT TO DISTRICT OR PRIVATE AUDIT

Amendments made: Amendment No. 368, in page 103, line 40, leave out from first 'any' to 'or' in line 44 and insert:
'body whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act or on the application of any such body'.

No. 369, in page 104, line 1, leave out from 'from' to end of line 5 and insert:
'an auditor's report under section 156 above, or for any other reason, that it is desirable to do so'.

No. 370, in page 104, line 8, leave out from 'above' to 'shall' in line 10 and insert:
'except subsections (1), (2) and (4) of section 158'.

No. 371, in page 104, line 11, leave out 'district audit' and insert:
'audit under this Part of this Act'.

No. 372, in page 104, line 13, leave out 'authority, committee or other'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 164

REGULATIONS AS TO ACCOUNTS

Amendments made: No. 373, in page 104, line 22, after 'the', insert:
'publication of information relating to and the form'.)

No. 374, in page 104, line 23, leave out from 'to' to end of line 24 and insert:
'audit under this Part of this Act (including extraordinary audit under section 163 above) and any such regulations may include provision with respect to'.

No. 375, in page 104, line 27, leave out 'and inspection of the accounts' and insert:
'of such accounts of any body at the offices of the body or any other place'.

No. 376, in page 104, line 29, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
(c) the exercise of any rights of inspection of objection conferred by this Act in relation to the accounts of any body and any auditor's report thereon, and the steps to be taken for informing local government electors for the area of that body of those rights;
(d) the provision by bodies whose accounts are being audited of information for the purpose of determining the fee payable for the audit.

No. 377, in page 104, line 33, leave out 'regulations under this section' and insert 'provision of regulations under this section, the contravention of which is declared by the regulations to be an offence'.

No. 995, in page 104, line 40, at end add:
'(4) Any expenses incurred by an auditor in connection with proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection (2) above alleged

to have been committed in relation to the accounts of any body shall, so far as not recovered from any other source, be recoverable from that body'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 165

AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS OF OFFICERS

Amendment made: No. 378, in page 104, line 41, leave out from 'a' to 'receives' in line 1 on page 105 and insert:
'body whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 13

AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FINANCE AND RATING

Amendments made: Amendment No. 1001, in page 252, line 30, at end insert:

'Parish Councils Act 1957

5. After subsection (1) of section 3 of the Parish Councils Act 1957 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) Where the council of a parish or community or a parish meeting exercise the powers conferred on them by subsection (1) above in part only of the parish or community, then, notwithstanding anything in section 149 of the Local Government Act 1972, the parish or community council or parish meeting may by resolution declare the expenses incurred under this section to be chargeable only on such part of their area as may be specified in the resolution, and any such resolution may be varied or revoked by a subsequent resolution of the council or meeting, as the case may be" '.

No. 646, in page 254, line 16, leave out 'the said section 91(5)' and insert 'section 91(5) of that Act'.

Orders of the Day — Clause 169

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE AND FINANCIAL LOSS ALLOWANCE

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 744 and with this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments:

No. 870, in page 106, line 41, leave out from 'duty' to end of line 43.

No. 649, in page 106, line 43, at end insert—

(2) The amount prescribed under subsection (1) above may be prescribed by reference to any period of twenty-four hours.
(3) The amount of any allowance determined by a local authority under subsection (1)



above may vary according to the time of day and the duration of the duty, but shall be the same for all members of the authority entitled to the allowance in respect of a duty of any description at the same time of day and of the same duration and the sub-amendments (a) and (b);

No. 648, in page 107, line 10, at end insert—
( ) At any time before the expiry of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which this section comes into force or the day on which he comes into office, whichever is the later, an alderman of a local authority may by notice in writing served on the proper officer of the authority elect to be treated for the purposes of this section as eligible for an attendance allowance instead of a financial loss allowance; and where an alderman has made such an election, then, during the period beginning on the day of the service of the notice and ending when he ceases to be an alderman, he shall be treated for the purposes of this section as though he were a councillor.
and the sub-amendments thereto:

No. 650, in page 107, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert:
'A member of a parish or community council shall not be entitled to any payment under this section in respect of the performance as such a member of an approved duty within the'.

No. 652, in page 107, line 24, leave out from 'exceeding' to 'parish' in line 27 and insert:
'in the case of travel for the purpose of an approved duty within the United Kingdom, such rates as may be specified by the Secretary of State.
(2) A member of a parish or community council shall not be entitled to any payment under this section in respect of the performance as such a member of an approved duty within the'.

No. 1060, in page 109, line 6, leave out from 'established' to second 'joint' in line 8 and insert:
'by schemes for the time being in force for any area for the purposes of section 88 of the General Rate Act 1967;

(d) any joint committee of two or more local authorities, whether appointed or established under this Part of this Act or any other enactment;
(e) any'.

No. 623, in page 109, line 6, leave out 'under' and insert:
'by schemes for the time being in force for the purposes of section 88 of'.

No. 775, in page 109, line 13, at end insert:
'by one of its members or by any other person'.

No. 655, in page 110, line 20, leave out '170'.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 774, in page 106, line 39, leave out 'who is a councillor'.
We spent some time in Committee dealing with attendance allowance, financial loss allowance, travel and subsistence matters.
The purpose of the Amendment is to try to ensure that those who get the benefit of the new attendance allowance should also include co-opted members of the local authorities. I do not think that this is the case at present, or under the Amendments which are down in the name of my right hon. Friend. I think there is equity in the point I am making, and I make it on behalf of the Greater London Council which is, of course, concerned with the continuity of the services of aldermen and co-opted members of the various committees of that authority. I myself am not at all sure whether the income tax element in these benefits is fair to those who are entitled to them, and I should like my right hon. Friend's comments, and his assurance if he can give it me, in that respect.

Mr. Graham Page: I will deal first with Amendment 649 and the group of Amendments to Amendment 649, and also Amendment 870.
Amendment 649 is designed to give local authorities freedom to decide for themselves what rate of attendance allowance is appropriate to their local circumstances and how it should be apportioned according to the time of day or the duration of the approved duty, subject only to the limitations, first, that the total amount paid to anyone councillor in any period of 24 hours must not exceed a prescribed limit, and, secondly, that the authority must not discriminate between types of councillor or between classes of approved duties.
There was considerable discussion on this subject in Committee, where it was suggested that councillors might be embarrassed by fixing their own allowances. We did, subsequent to the Committee, consult the local authority associations on this subject, and they felt there would not be any embarrassment. We, therefore, tabled this Amendment again,


leaving the councils to fix the allowances, subject to the limitations I have mentioned.
The Amendments to Amendment 649 would have the effect of making the rate of attendance allowance a statutory £5 a day, instead of leaving it to be determined by the local authority within the limits prescribed by the Secretary of State. I must resist the Amendments to the Amendment. It would be most inadvisable, first, to try in a Statute to fix the rate of allowance; and the Amendments to the Amendment would take away the responsibility of local authorities to determine within the prescribed limits, the rate of allowance which they consider most appropriate. I would ask the House to leave the position as it is set out in Amendment 649.

5.15 a.m.

I think you also included in the grouping, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Amendment No. 648, which has the effect of giving aldermen a choice between claiming the attendance allowance available to councillors and the financial loss allowance available to other members of public bodies who are at present subject to the local government allowances code. We earlier discussed the aldermen. The Bill abolishes the aldermanic system throughout the country except in London, where it will continue for a few years after 1974.

An alderman sitting next to a councillor on the Greater London Council will be in the awkward position of finding that he is entitled to a lower allowance than the councillor. There are problems of taxation on this, and it seemed right to give the alderman a choice as to the form of allowance he claims. Some aldermen may find it beneficial to claim the attendance allowance despite the consequential tax liability on their travel and subsistence allowances. One cannot say that an alderman is working in two places as one can with a councillor. He does not represent a ward or constituency and therefore he has only one place of business.

An alderman who travels long distances and is already subject to high rates of income tax might prefer to retain the present tax-free financial loss travel and subsistence allowances. So we give him the choice according to whether he travels

long distances or pays a high rate of tax. It is a most unfortunate position in tax law, but I have to adjust the local government law to the taxation law.

There are Amendments which nullify the purpose of Amendment No. 648, and I am unable to advice the House to accept them. I have forgotten the remainder of the Amendments which are grouped together. Will you be kind enough, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to repeat them, so that I know how many I may deal with while I am on my feet?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The group I read out, which I understand to be the agreed group, consists of Amendments Nos. 870, 649 and sub-Amendments, 648 and sub-Amendments, 650, 652, 1060, 623 and 655. Do I understand that the group should also include No. 755?

Mr. Arthur Jones: I asked that Amendment No. 755 be deleted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That explains it. Amendment No. 755 no longer exists.

Mr. Graham Page: Amendment No. 650 is purely a drafting Amendment, and I ask the House to accept it as such.
Amendments Nos. 651, 652, 653 and 654 proved that travel and subsistence allowances payable for journeys outside the United Kingdom shall not be subject to the limits prescribed by the Secretary of State for those allowances in respect of all other journeys. The first two of those Amendments give effect to this in respect of normal approved duties. The third and fourth of those Amendments remove any doubt that the same principle applies to attendances at conferences and meetings held outside the United Kingdom for which the authority has decided to pay the discretionary allowances provided for in Clause 171.
This was mentioned in Committee, and it is certainly the Government's wish to see local authorities playing their full part in European affairs and having the power to allow travel and subsistence allowances for journeys outside the United Kingdom. Those Amendments provide for freedom in that respect.

Mr. Maddan: We are discussing only Amendment No. 652, and not that group of four Amendments. I hope that the fact that we are discussing only Amendment No. 652 will in no way nullify the


good news my right hon. Friend has announced to the House, but if that is so, perhaps we may take the other Amendments.

Mr. Page: I am sorry if I have overstepped the mark. I have Amendments Nos. 651, 652, 653 and 654 grouped, and they all deal with very much the same matter. If they were not called, I wonder whether they could be dealt with together.
Amendment No. 774 seeks to entitle aldermen to the attendance allowance payable under subsection (1) instead of the financial loss allowance payable under subsection (2). What I described as being achieved by Amendment No. 648 will give aldermen a choice between the two allowances. This is not a matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it would be right to point out at this stage that Amendments Nos. 651, 653 and 654 were debated with Amendment No. 642.

Mr. Page: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to something which had already been debated in order to include Amendment No. 652, which we have not touched on.
Returning to Amendment No. 774, as I explained in dealing with Amendment No. 648, the payment of a taxable attendance allowance to aldermen will entail their subsistence and travel allowances becoming liable for tax as well. Many aldermen could be worse off than they would be with the tax free financial loss allowance. So the best thing to do is to give them a choice, as Amendment No. 648 gives.
I hope that I have dealt with all the Amendments. There are one or two Amendments which I shall wish to move when they are reached.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Amendment No. 774 deletes the words "who is a councillor". Surely that is not meant to refer only to aldermen. I assume that it was also meant to refer to co-opted members of the council.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Mr. Arthur Jones indicated assent.

Mr. Mitchell: That is a very important point. There are many co-opted members all over the country who play a very

valuable part in the affairs of local government on education committees, health committees and numerous other committees. It would be reasonable for these people, who have to stay away from work and lose time, and so on, to be paid an attendance allowance as well as councillors if taking part in committees.

Mr. Graham Page: I have taken the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall try to find the answer before we leave the House this morning.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 649, in page 106, line 43, at end insert:
(2) The amount prescribed under subsection (1) above may be prescribed by reference to any period of twenty-four hours.
(3) The amount of any allowance determined by a local authority under subsection (1) above may vary according to the time of day and the duration of the duty, but shall be the same for all members of the authority entitled to the allowance in respect of a duty of any description at the same time of day and of the same duration.

No. 648, in page 107, line 10, at end insert:
( ) At any time before the expiry of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which this section comes into force or the day on which he comes into office, whichever is the later, an alderman of a local authority may by notice in writing served on the proper officer of the authority elect to be treated for the purposes of this section as eligible for an attendance allowance instead of a financial loss allowance; and where an alderman has made such an election, then, during the period beginning on the day of the service of the notice and ending when he ceases to be an alderman, he shall be treated for the purposes of this section as though he were a councillor.

No. 650, in page 107, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert:
'A Member of a parish or community council shall not be entitled to any payment under this section in respect of the performance as such a member of an approved duty within the'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 170

TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE

Amendments made: No. 651, in page 107, line 20, after 'travelling', insert:
'(whether inside or outside the United Kingdom'.

No. 652, in page 107, line 24, leave out from 'exceeding' to 'parish' in line 27 and insert:
'in the case of travel for the purpose of an approved duty within the United Kingdom, such rates as may be specified by the Secretary of State.
(2) A member of a parish or community council shall not be entitled to any payment under this section in respect of the performance as such a member of an approved duty within the'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 171

ALLOWANCES FOR ATTENDING CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS

Amendments made: No. 653, in page 108, line 4, leave out from 'respectively' to end of line and insert:
'prescribed under section 169 above and. except in the case of a conference or meeting held outside the United Kingdom, specified under section 170 above for the corresponding allowances under those sections'.

No. 654, in page 108, line 13, after 'meeting', insert:
'held inside or outside the United Kingdom and'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 173

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 169 TO 172

Amendments made: No. 1060, in page 109, line 6, leave out from 'established' to second 'joint' in line 8 and insert—

'by schemes for the time being in force for any area for the purposes of section 88 of the General Rate Act 1967;
(d) any joint committee of two or more local authorities, whether appointed or established under this Part of this Act or any other enactment;
(e) any'.

No. 623, in page 109, line 6, leave out 'under' and insert:
'by schemes for the time being in force for the purposes of section 88 of'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 174

REGULATIONS AS TO ALLOWANCES

Amendment made: No. 655, in page 110, line 20, leave out '170'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Bill ( as amended in the Standing Committee ), to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

As amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

RESTRICTION ON PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION UNDER S. 169 OF ACT 1971

Compensation shall be payable under the provisions of section 169 of the Act of 1971 (compensation for planning decisions restricting development other than new development) only insofar as the proposed enlargement, improvement or other alteration is within the plot ratio or other limitation laid down in the local planning authority's development plan for the area in which the proposed works mentioned above are to take place.—[Sir B. Rhys Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.30 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause is lifted verbatim from a Bill which I introduced on 26th April under the Ten Minutes Rule under the name Development of Property. I said at that time a few words of explanation and I do not think it necessary for me to detain the House at great length in explaining the point once again.
This is a matter of very considerable importance, certainly in the borough which I have the honour to represent and I believe also in certain other inner London areas and possibly in the centre of some of our other great conurbations.
The explanation of the Clause can be given in a few sentences. Under the original planning law at the end of the war it was decided that it would be a matter of convenience for all concerned if a simple rule of thumb were included that developments which did not require an extension of the cubic area of the property concerned by more than 10 per cent, could be permitted without the necessity for further formality.
As an extension of that, it was provided that, where a building was in multiple occupation such as a block of flats, it would be the normal practice for planning permission to be granted where extensions were proposed which did not exceed 10 per cent. of the original volume.
With the passage of time, it has been accepted that if the local authority decided to intervene where blocks of flats were concerned to prevent the development from taking place compensation should be paid for the loss of the facility in the hands of the developer.
This is becoming a serious matter in Kensington. My local authority advises me that there have been five cases at least in the last six months of large Victorian mansion blocks where the owners have made applications for extentions within the 10 per cent. envelope. The local authority has been in the dilemma that, if it refuses permission, it may be obliged to pass on to ratepayers the burden of very considerable compensation. In one case the figure of approximately £50,000 has been calculated.
Recognising that these cases are arising all the time, I think that my right hon. Friend will accept that the possible burden on the ratepayers of refusing these applications all along the line could be intolerable.
The proposal in the Clause is simply that such compensation should not be payable in cases where the application under the 10 per cent. rule would take the building outside the plot ratio or other limitation in the local planning authority's development plan. It is reasonable that local authorities should not be put in the dilemma that they either have to accept a development which is fundamentally out of order in the district where it is proposed or place on the ratepayers the necessity to find a very large sum of money.
I do not like to enter too deeply into the deliberations of the planning authority in the Royal Borough, but inevitably the fact that it has been inclined to give permission for these developments notwithstanding the very great inconvenience to those already living in the blocks and the fact that the areas concerned may be already congested and, indeed, overcrowded reflect the pressure to which the authority is subject as a result of the operation of the 10 per cent. rule.
I recognise that it could be argued that a latent entitlement runs with the property and that, if the owners are deprived of it, that constitutes a sort of retrospec-

tive fine, in that something which they may have expected as part of the asset when they acquired the property is being taken from them by retrospective legislation. But if the facility to expand by 10 per cent. is not claimed for over 20 years since it was conferred, it can reasonably be considered to have expired through lapse of time.
Those who are acquiring property from today in the hope of exploiting the 10 per cent. rule would be well advised to take note of the suggestion I am making, which I know is widely supported in the Royal Borough and, I believe, by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have given this matter close consideration.
Parliament should no longer be content that the inhabitants of substantial blocks should be inconvenienced and ratepayers blackmailed by blatant exploitation of an obsolete Act. I therefore express the hope that my right hon. Friend, if he is not able to accept the wording which I have devised in the Clause, will at any rate recognise that the point I am making is a substantial one which requires to be dealt with by the Government.

Mr. Graham Page: This Clause, as my hon. Friend has explained, seeks to limit the right to claim compensation under Section 169 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 for the refusal of planning permission or the imposition of conditions restricting the development of property so that it would be payable only where the development consisted, as appears in the Clause, of
enlargement, improvement or other alteration
of a building which was
within the plot ratio or other limitation laid down in the local planning authority's development plan for the area…
Under the provisions of Section 169 and the Eighth Schedule of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, compensation is payable if permission is refused for extensions to existing buildings, provided that the cubic capacity of the original building is not exceeded by 10 per cent or in the case of a dwelling house by 10 per cent or 1,750 cubic feet whichever is the greater, and provided that the original floor space is not exceeded by more than 10 per cent.
The second limitation was brought in by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1963, because modern building methods had made it possible for developers to get more floor space within a given building cube so that a 10 per cent. addition to the cubic content could give an increase in floor space of as much as 40 per cent. thus producing a corresponding increase in the compensation payable for refusal of a 10 per cent. addition to the cubic capacity. My hon. Friend is not so much concerned with the increase of the interior capacity as with the increase in the whole of the building by this matter of 10 per cent.
The underlying principle of this compensation provision is that limited extensions will not in general be open to serious planning objections. My hon. Friend said that there are objections to this in his constituency and he pointed out that authorities are afraid to refuse planning permission even for quite substantial extensions to blocks of flats still within the 10 per cent. because of the compensation which might become payable. I might point out that no compensation arises under Section 169 unless the Secretary of State has given the decision, although of course the compensation has then to be paid by the authority.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend's new Clause is unacceptable from two points of view—first, because of the conditions which he puts in it; and secondly, because of a matter of principle. On the first point, the policies for development plans are drawn up as broad principles to be applied to development over a wide area. The application of those principles to a particular case has to be considered on the merits of the case.
My hon. Friend mentions plot ratio in the Clause. Plot ratio is a policy of that kind, applied to a particular case but being a broad conception of policy. It is a broad indication of the amount of the development potential of the area as a whole which might be taken up on a particular area of land. Where redevelopment is proposed, the indicated plot ratio is a useful guide to a developer and to the planning authority, but it cannot be applied as a rigid yardstick on which one could pay or deprive a developer of compensation. It has little value in rela-

tion to the control of extensions to existing buildings, many of which, of course, were erected before planning control, and it is quite inappropriate as a yardstick for compensation purposes.
Second, under this head, the reference to "other limitations" laid down in the development plan is still more unsatisfactory as a basis for compensation. It is not clear what other limitations my hon. Friend has in mind.
Those are what I call the partially drafting objections, though, as I say, they go a little beyond mere drafting questions in that they import criteria which could not be regarded as satisfactory as a basis for the calculation of compensation. But in any case the new Clause is objectionable in principle as it stands.
It would be most unsatisfactory for compensation provisions in planning legislation to be amended piecemeal in this way, and especially in this Bill. The Bill is not designed to cover matters of compensation. It is purely a town and country planning Bill dealing with certain specific points.
There has been no pressure from the local authority associations on this subject. Only so far as my hon. Friend's own local authority and constituents are concerned has anyone wished to make inroads into the compensation payable on extensions of up to 10 per cent. This has long been a basic figure in the compensation code.
It may well be that my hon. Friend can make out a good case in respect of Kensington, that in the over-built-up areas of Kensington to add another 10 per cent. to a block of flats may be oppressive to the dwellings round about. But this is a major matter of compensation law which, if it were put into a Bill of this kind, would affect the whole country.
We are reviewing the compensation code. I hope that we shall shortly put before the House a White Paper on that review, followed by legislation as soon as possible, in the next Session, I hope. If any matter of compensation is to be dealt with by legislation, it ought to be done not piecemeal in the present Bill but in the compensation Bill which we have in preparation. If at that stage my hon. Friend could make out a case to show that the hardships which his local


authority and its residents are suffering in Kensington might well apply throughout the rest of the country, I should ask him to make his case on that compensation Bill and not now. I shall have to resist his new Clause.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I quite understand what my right hon. Friend says, particularly in regard to the criteria selected in the new Clause. The object of my Ten-Minute Rule Bill was to attract attention to the subject rather than seriously to propose legislation, but I found that there was a Bill going through which had a Long Title which permitted me to transfer from one to the other, and this I did. I do not think that I can be blamed for that, in view of the extent of the concern and indignation which is being caused in my constituency by the exploitation of this loophole.
I am much encouraged by what my right hon. Friend said about the Government's intention to produce a White Paper. I am sure that it will not be difficult to show that legislation is needed, and I look forward to proving my case. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

APPLICATION OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (USE CLASSES) ORDER 1963

'The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)Order 1963 shall apply to any residential accommodation available for letting where the actual or expected duration of the tenancy is less than twenty-two days, as they apply to a boarding or guest house, a residential club, or a hotel providing sleepingaccommodation'.—[Sir B. Rhys Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With the new Clause it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 14, in Title, line 1, after second 'to', insert 'change of use and'.

5.45 a.m.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The original intention of the Clause as it appeared in my Bill was to give power to restrict the changing of a property from long unfurnished letting to quick turn-round furnished flat lets for short-stay visitors.

My original device was to catch the change of user at the point of a dramatic change in the level of service charges.
In order to bring my proposal within the scope of the Bill and within the rules of order, it was necessary somewhat to change the nature of the provision, and I think that the Clause does not now contribute much to the provisions already established in the Kensington and Chelsea Corporation Bill. I look forward confidently to seeing that Bill complete its passage within a week or two. It is not necessary for me to press the point further except to say that I hope it has been a useful contribution to draw attention to the fact that very sharp increases in service charges may be taken to indicate that something is going on in a block of flats which requires the attention of the planning authority. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that point in mind when framing legislation in future. In the circumstances which I have explained, I do not wish to move, that the Clause be read a Second time.

New Clause 9

CHANGE OF USE

'Section 22(3) of the Act of 1971 (which provides that certain operations or uses of land or buildings involve a material change in the use of the land or buildings) shall be amended by adding at the end the words:
(c) raising the level of occupancy of any building above the net residential density as set out in the development plan, whether by the carrying out of any works for the alteration of the building or otherwise, involves a material change in the use of the building" '.—[Sir B. Rhys Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In Kensington we are suffering from our own particular type of inflation. We have too many people chasing too few rooms. The problem is one which is on the point of becoming almost unmanageable and, indeed, intolerable. Last Wednesday at a packed meeting at the town hall, about 700 people were, I believe, virtually unanimous in their desire for the Government to intervene to protect Kensington and the whole of central London from a sharp deterioration which they felt was proceeding in the way of life of people who live in


central London, and in the environment generally.
It would be fruitful now to give local authorities powers which are already latent in existing legislation, namely to restrict increases in levels of occupancy to existing ceilings. Under the Housing Acts local authorities are accustomed to intervening where there is severe overcrowding, but they are entitled to do it only where there is a health hazard. Equally, under the Planning Acts local authorities are already used to setting maximum levels of occupancy but only where new building is proposed or where substantial building change is involved.
There is anxiety in central London at the moment because buildings where the original layout and structure was on a sufficiently grand scale to avoid any risk of health hazard are being subjected to a rise in the occupancy level. It is profitable for unscrupulous developers to exploit the trend and sharply to reduce the general level of amenity and living standards of those who are crowded into these premises.
My original intention was that we should confer—possibly by the Secretary of State'sdecision—upon those local authorities which are suffering particularly from the problem the power to designate particular areas, or even particular blocks, as areas of certain fixed maximum occupancies, rather as they declare conservation areas. I do not feel that that is such a large departure from existing legislation, or that there would be any serious difficulty in implementing it.
I recognise, however, that it may require certain safeguards, such as the notice to be given to the owners of the premises and possibly in regard to appeal. In many cases the fact that the council was known to have the necessary powers to prevent a rise in the level of occupancy of established premises might well be enough to prevent speculators from adventuring into conversions of existing blocks or raising the levels of occupancy in a way which might bring down on them the wrath of the local planning authority.
I assure my right hon. Friend that, although he may not like the phraseology of the Clause, he has only to come to Kensington or to visit many other central urban authorities to recognise the need for something to be done. We want to

prevent the intensification of residential use of existing properties, particularly in conservation areas, in order to protect the quality of life of our cities.

Mr. Graham Page: I appreciate the problem which faces my hon. Friend's constituency with the increase of occupancy of the residential areas there. I know that the object of the Clause is to require planning permission to be obtained before any works are carried out or other changes are made to a building which would raise the occupancy level.
above the net residential density
set out for the area in the development plan. But there are grave difficulties in dealing with the matter in this way.
In seeking to establish in his Clause a yardstick of acceptable density of occupation, my hon. Friend has turned to the densities which are usually stated in development plans as part of the authority's general policy of controlling new buildings. These densities are not related to the existing pattern of development; they are laid down with the idea of giving guidance both to the developer and to the planning authority as to the appropriate densities when new buildings are erected. In many older areas existing densities are well in excess of those stated in the development plan.
If the change which led to an increased occupancy were a division of the house into flats, it would already involve development by virtue of Section 22(3)(a) of the 1971 Act. If works were involved in building an extension, this would also involve development, although the development might not need express permission, if the size of the extension were within the limitations which we discussed on a previous Clause and which are set out in the general development order—the 1,750 cubic feet, or one-tenth of the original cubic capacity, height not exceeding that of the original building. But even if the extension is within the general development order limits it could be brought under control by the local planning authority making a direction under article 4 of the general development order. This could lead to a compensation claim if permission were subsequently refused on an application.
There are some possible ways of dealing with the problem. If we deal with


it in the way my hon. Friend wishes in the new Clause, the most unintentional problems could arise. The raising of the level of occupancy is to be controlled not only if works take place but also if it occurs "otherwise". Therefore, assuming it were possible to work out from a development plan the permissible level of occupancy of a small house in, say, single-family occupation, the occupier would require planning permission for a material change of use of the building if his family increased beyond the permitted number. That could happen even though there was adequate room for all the family in the house. I think that this is taking family planning a little to the extreme.
The adoption of the densities set out in the development plan as the criterion for the purpose of this provision is, I think, misconceived. The development plans lay down maximum densities in terms of persons per acre, and to assess the permitted occupancy of an individual house by reference to a development plan would involve measuring each house plot, which is usually taken as including half the width of the road, and measured in this way a corner house might have quite a large plot. If it occupied, say, one-tenth of an acre and the density prescribed in the plan was 136 persons per acre, the corner house could be occupied by 13·6 people, while the house next door, of identical size, might have a plot of only half the size or even less. The base line for a material change would be in that case 6·8 people. There would be no logic in the prescribed occupancy level derived from the use of densities set out in the development plan, while a lot of work would be involved in trying to work them out.
Giving these examples of the difficulties of applying the sort of criteria my hon. Friend proposes does not detract from my concern about the position as it arises in Kensington and other London boroughs and areas in other cities. I think we must consider for some areas some regulation of the density of population particularly in order to preserve, as my hon. Friend said, the quality of life there. In that I am not, and I am sure he is not, being snobbish and wanting to keep large houses in the occupation of only a couple of people. Although I appreciate his problem, I think he is

choosing the wrong way to deal with it, and certainly it should not come under planning law. We shall have to find some better way to deal with it than he proposes.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 10

SERVICE OF BUILDING PRESERVATION NOTICES IN CASES OF URGENCY

'(1) Section 58 of the Act of 1971 shall be amended by adding at the end the following subsection:—

"(6) If it appears to the local planning authority to be urgent that a building preservation notice should come into force, they may, instead of serving the notice on the owner and occupier of the building to which it relates, affix the notice conspicuously to some object on the building; and this shall be treated for all the purposes of this section and of Schedule 11 to this Act as service of the said notice, in relation to which subsection (1)(b) of this section shall be taken to include a reference to this subsection".

(2) Section 48 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969 shall be amended by adding at the end the following subsection:—

"(6) If it appears to the local planning authority to be urgent that a building preservation notice should come into force, they may, instead of serving the notice on the owner, lessee and occupier of the building to which it relates, affix the notice conspicuously to some object on the building; and this shall be treated for all the purposes of this section and of Schedule 4 to this Act as service of the said notice, in relation to which subsection (1)(b) of this section shall be taken to include a reference to this subsection"'.—[Mr. Sydney Chapman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It would be convenient to consider at the same time Amendment No. 15, in Title, line 4, at end insert:
'the service of building preservation notices and for'.
also standing in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands worth (Mr. Sydney Chapman):

6 a.m.

Mr. Chapman: New Clause 10 and Amendment No. 15, which is consequential, have to do with the service of a building preservation notice in cases of urgency. The new Clause seeks to close


a loophole or what has come to light as a flagrant abuse of the serving of notice of building preservation orders. At present, generally it is not necessary to get planning permission to demolish a building. There are basically two exceptions. The first is under Section 58 of the 1971 Act if the building is a listed building; the second will be under Clause 7(2) of this Bill which gives the local planning authority the right to insist on permission before demolition of any building in a conservation area. When the building preservation orders were first introduced there was necessarily a proper though lengthy procedure for their service, giving time for owners to make representations to the Minister, as a result of which it was possible for an owner to pull down a building before the order had been confirmed by the Minister. That led to legislation giving power to the local planning authority to put an instant preservation order on a building pending the Minister's confirmation.
It has been realised that that procedure is insufficient to deal with a particular problem, which has been highlighted by a most disgraceful case in Wheat Hampstead, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) in May of this year. The building was the Town Farm, a fifteenth century farmhouse with outbuildings. The St. Albans Rural District Council, with delegated powers from the local planning authority, the Hertfordshire County Council, wanted to put an instant preservation notice on the building. It attempted to serve the notice but the notice was not received. Incidentally, this might now be the stage for me to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend for the steps he tried to take to stop the building being demolished. Were he not a Government Whip, he himself might well have been advocating the Clause, or one similar to it, instead of myself.
The point is that it was tried to serve the notice on 7th May at the latest to what was regarded as the correct address of the persons who owned the farm, but as there was no registered office at the address the postman could not deliver it.
It was perhaps more than a coincidence that early next morning a demolition team arrived on the site no later than

8.30 a.m. I am told that nearby residents saw what was about to happen and immediately had the presence of mind to get in touch with the chairman of the rural district council who, with the deputy clerk arrived on the site, as did my hon. Friend. It is also more than coincidental perhaps, that the builder on the site in charge of the demolition work was a Mr. Brian Colwell, of Well gate Road, Luton, and that the owner of the site was the Maltglade Development Company, one of the directors of which is a Mrs. Margaret Colwell, of Well gate Road, Luton.
Mr. Brian Colwell, having heard of the representations made by the residents, and having been informed that the local planning authority had served a preservation notice, and, I understand, shown the actual notice, telephoned for instructions, and then proceeded to get on with the demolition. He and his team bulldozed the farm in haste, and the guarantee of that is that my hon. Friend has told me that when he arrived on the site the demolition was in progress with water gushing from a severed main pipe connection. When the building was demolished, the timbers were put in a bonfire pile and set alight so close to the weather boarded outbuilding that they too, caught fire and burned down, as did a mature tree.
There seems to be little doubt—there is certainly no doubt in my mind—that this was a deliberately organised act of vandalism. Incidentally, my right hon. Friend will know that the owners of that site are now awaiting planning permission for dwelling house development.
Because of this loophole, what happened at Wheat Hampstead could happen elsewhere because of the inability of the local planning authority satisfactorily to serve notice. I understand that the law is—and this came out in the subsequent court case—that the notice must be served by sending it by recorded delivery service to the last known place of abode, or by delivery, or by addressing it to the company secretary or clerk at the registered office.
I also understand from this court case in the Queen's Bench Division that this interpretation has to be read in conjunction with Section 26 of the Interpretation Act, 1889. I gather, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D


Walker-Smith) would confirm, that the point of law turned on whether the notice was served when it was sent, which I understand it to have been, provided that it would have been received or was received before the offence was committed. I gather that on that very narrow definition the court decided that it was not received before the offence was committed.
The point is simply that this development company got away with it by acting quickly and there is certainly no doubt in my mind that it perfectly well knew that it was sought to serve a preservation notice. New Clause 10 seeks to prevent this scandalous event from happening again by giving power to the local planning authority to affix a notice conspicuously to some object on the building if it is felt urgent that a building preservation notice should come into force.
Since I first drafted the Clause, my right hon. Friend has suggested Amendments to it to cover Scotland. Naturally, I have accepted those suggestions and the Clause as it now appears is amended to take account of them. I commend the new Clause and I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel able to accept it.
If the new Clause is accepted, in one sense the credit should go to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans, but I am sure that he would be the first to agree that in another important sense it should go to those people of Wheat Hampstead who, unfortunately, on the occasion of 8th May stood by, frustrated by this development company which was not obeying the spirit of the law, even if, as the court subsequently decided, it fulfilled the letter of the law. It may bring comfort to the people of Wheat Hampstead to know that their protest has not gone unheard.

Mr. Graham Page: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) explained, where a local planning authority considers that an unlisted building is in danger of demolition or alteration in a way that would affect its character as a listed building should it be included in the list, a building preservation notice may be served on the owner and other persons interested in the property, and a copy sent to the Secretary of State. The

effect of the notice is to give the building all the protection of a listed building for a period of a maximum of six months while the Secretary of State considers whether he should add the building permanently to the list.
This is an important provision and a crucial part is the service of the notice on the owner and on other interested persons, as the six-months' protection does not begin until the notice has been served. On the other hand, the notice may not be served unless the authority has reason to believe that the building is in danger of demolition or alteration. There is the difficulty that a conscientious local authority will wait until the danger is looming and then there will be a short period during which to serve the notice and prevent the demolition or alteration of the building. If the authority has any difficulty in discovering the whereabouts of the owner, the building may be lost while it is attempting to serve the notice.
This Clause has two things in its favour—it is simple and quick. Where it is urgently necessary to bring a building preservation notice into force the authority may, under the Clause, affix it to the holding, and once the notice has been affixed the building will immediately have the protection enjoyed by a listed building.
I have many times in the past complained in the House and in Committee about notices being served on owners and occupiers of property by being pinned to some door or a tree or fence on the property. My complaints have always been directed to the cases in which that was sufficient service to start a process of depriving the owner or occupier of the property. In this case it is just the reverse. Here we are trying to preserve a property, and I would not complain about this form of service. I would not expect a local planning authority to use this means of service except where it is urgently necessary to bring a notice into effect and when it anticipates difficulty in serving it on the owner personally.
I am sure that if a local authority knew the whereabouts of the owner and knew that it could serve him it would not perversely stick the notice on the property and wait for the owner to find it; it would serve him personally. With that reservation, I am pleased to advise the


House to accept the Clause and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3

AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO APPROVAL OF STRUCTURE PLANS AND LOCAL PLANS ETC. BY SECRETARY OF STATE.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 28, at end insert:
'and the bodies and persons who may take part therein shall be such only as he may, whether before or during the course of the examination, in his discretion invite to do so:
Provided that the person or persons holding the examination shall have power, exercisable either before or during the course of the examination, to invite additional bodies or persons to take part therein if it appears to him or them desirable to do so'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 3, in page 5, leave out lines 34 to 41.

Mr. Page: This Amendment sets out the method of selection of the bodies and persons who will take part in the examination in public which the Secretary of State is required by new subsection (3) of Section 9 of the 1971 Act to hold. This provision will replace the existing subsection (7) of Section 9 as it is set out in Clause 3.
When the provisions for an examination in public on structure plans were considered in Committee there was a helpful and constructive discussion, particularly about the selection of issues and participants. Members of the Committee accepted that in general we should not try, at this stage, to lay down procedure for the examination in public, by Statute or in regulations, but that, because it was a new procedure, it should at the outset be set out in a code of practice which could be adapted more readily, as necessary, in the light of experience in the first few examinations. The Committee showed particular interest in the selection

of participants in this examination in public of the structure plan. It agreed to an Amendment of Section 9, as set out in Clause 3(7), designed to give the panel holding the examination the power to add to the list of those bodies or persons invited by the Secretary of State to take part. This was in line with the ideas being developed for the code of practice outlined in a consultation document which was given a wide circulation as long ago as last February. Certainly I accept the substance of subsection (7) as it now appears.
It would be preferable to associate the new provision with subsection (5). Furthermore, in order to introduce a power for the panel holding the examination to invite additional bodies or persons, it is necessary to refer specifically to the fact that the primary method of selection will be by invitation to appear issued by the Secretary of State.

6.15 a.m.

Subsection (5) at present provides that the Secretary of State is not required to secure to any body or person a right of appeal. Amendment No. 1 adds to that subsection an express provision that the bodies and persons taking part in the examination in public should be those invited to do so by the Secretary of State, and, additionally, those invited to do so by the person or persons holding the examination—these powers of invitation being exercisable before or during the course of the examination. Thus Amendment No. 3 is merely consequential and deletes the existing subsection (7).

I consider that we have improved on the contents and indeed the intent of subsection (7) and believe that these two Amendments will secure the essential point established in Committee by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands worth (Mr. Sydney Chapman), but will do so in a way which fits in with the related provisions.

We shall deal more fully in the code of practice with the selection of those invited to take part in the examination. We hope to have a draft code of practice ready for consultation with the local


authority associations, professional organisations and other interested bodies in a month or so. We shall have it in its final form well before the first examination is held.

I mention this point because the Standing Committee, understandably, was interested in the code. The Committee realised that there were many procedural matters about the examination which were not in the Bill and that there would be difficulties ahead if there were a long delay before we had a code of practice.

At the time I gave an assurance that I would not authorise any items relating to the examination in public to be brought into operation until we had the code ready to apply to the examination in public. I have looked again at the terms of that assurance and have realised that, if taken literally, it would lead to difficulties which were unforeseen at the time I gave it. The existing provisions of Part II of the 1971 Act, which deal with structure and local plans, have been brought into operation in three areas in the country. The new provisions concerning the making of joint structure plans, which are contained in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, will be brought into operation in those areas by order immediately the Bill becomes law, so that the authorities can proceed at once with their structure plans in the form of joint plans.

I have written to all members of the Committee explaining that immediately the Bill is enacted we shall also need to remake the existing general structure and local plan regulations, made under the 1968 Act to take account of these new provisions for joint structure plans, so that the authorities will be able to get on with the job. These regulations will be remade completely to take account of the consolidating 1971 Act.

The position will be that on Royal Assent to this Bill the present provisions in the 1971 Act relating to the holding of an inquiry and the hearing of objections on structure plans are repealed. In revising the regulations we shall have to leave out Regulations 23 and 24 which refer to an inquiry and objections on the old basis, since these will no longer have any meaning.

If the basic amending provisions of Clause 3, notably that substituting the requirement to hold an examination, for

the former requirement to hold an inquiry, and that re-enacting the duty to consider objections duly made, are not brought into force in the three areas I have mentioned, this will mean that the revised regulations could have no reference at all in them to the examination or the consideration of objections. It would be odd if all the statutory provisions and regulations from the first formal steps on structure plans through to altering local plans were in operation but with a gap on examinations and the consideration of objections.

We are advised that we should be open to serious criticism if we produced regulations entirely revoking the earlier version but not replacing a vital part of the procedure. If, however, the basic provisions of Clause 3 are in operation, the regulations can deal with the making and consideration of objections, and we should also be able to make a minimal reference to examinations, the only reference on the latter point that need be made till the code of practice has been tested and adapted.

I apologise for keeping the House with that explanation. I am grateful to the House for listening. I felt that I had to explain the reason why in some respects I have not carried out the undertaking which I gave to the Committee, but I think it would be better if the basic provisions relating to these examinations were brought into effect now.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: As one who took part in what my right hon. Friend described at the constructive and useful discussions in the Standing Committee on this matter, I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for the Amendments he proposed and for the explanation he has been good enough to give to the House. We shall look forward to studying the code of practice in regard to both the matter of issues and the persons invited to participate, and no doubt my right hon. Friend will confirm that a draft of the code of practice will be available to hon. Members at the same time as it is for consultation with interested parties.

Mr. Page: Yes.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I hope that I may be allowed to join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for


Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister most sincerely for his Amendments, which I very much welcome. It was my Amendment No. 5, which is now embodied in the amended Bill, in Clause 3(7), which was carried by the Committee, and I am very grateful that my right hon. Friend has accepted the sentiments which I expressed.
The position was—if I may state it very briefly—that with the Greater London Development Plan almost anything could be raised, on the one hand, under the original proposals in this Bill and yet on the other hand, people were not necessarily allowed to appear for examination in public. It was felt that my Amendment would soften that, and the person or persons holding an examination in public could be given the right to use discretion to call people other than those called by the Secretary of State.
I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for the sensitivity which he has shown to the various problems raised in Committee, and to thank him for the courteous and helpful way in which he has dealt with all the matters put forward. If it is not too much out of place, I would also congratulate him upon his fortitude in the last 15 hours in being almost continually in this Chamber to deal not only with this Bill on Report but also with the continuing saga of the Local Government Bill before it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 5, leave out lines 34 to 41.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Amendment made, in the Title, in line 4, at end insert:
'the service of building preservation notices and for'.—[Mr. Sydney Chapman.]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, and the Prince of Wales's Consent, signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — COMPANIES (FLOATING CHARGES AND RECEIVERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Question agreed to.

Bill ( deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of Environmental Pollution in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

6.26 a.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: This is perhaps not the most appropriate time to begin an Adjournment debate, but I appreciate the important business that has gone before and pay tribute to the right hon. and hon. Members who have stayed the course for so long.
The subject of my debate is Section 1(2) of the Social Security Act, 1971. I pay tribute to the local social security managers in my area and in no way criticise them for their handling of the cases I shall mention. The managers are Mr. Tonner, Mr. Seaple, Mr. Batty and Mr. McIntosh. Within the scope of the legislation with which they have to work, they are most generous and humane persons and I have nothing but the highest praise for them.
The Social Security Act, 1971, causes a great deal of misery and hardship within my area. It affects people who


have been disqualified from benefit because they have left their job for no good reason, and other unfortunate people who have been charged with industrial misconduct. Industrial misconduct is hard to define but the unfortunate people who are charged with it find it extremely difficult to survive on the payments they receive under Section 1(2) of the Act. They now receive 40 per cent. less than do the people who are on supplementary benefit. Under the previous legislation there was a discount of 75p, but perhaps that amount was not considered by this Government to be a sufficient deterrent to people leaving their jobs. The application of a 40 per cent. reduction in the allowance given to these persons who have been refused unemployment benefit causes a great deal of hardship and misery.
I will confine myself to three specific cases, each different in character. The first one relates to a married man who worked for 25 years with the same firm before it was taken over. Then, because he left his job without just cause, he was disqualified from receiving any unemployment benefit. Subsequently, because his wife was working, he received no benefit from the supplementary benefits office.
This is a real hardship to the gentleman concerned. It is certainly very degrading for this person to have his wife keeping him for six weeks. The letter from the insurance officer indicates that this man had been disqualified because he voluntarily left his employment without just cause.
I shall not go into all the reasons why a person gives up a certain job. But with the present level of the high unemployment that is raging in Scotland and the North of England, no one gives up a job without just cause.
Another example of the hardship caused by this Act is that of a young man of 18, John Hamilton. He is the victim of a broken family. He suffered the accusation of industrial misconduct because of a dispute with a foreman of his employers. Therefore, he was allowed no benefit from the employment exchange. Subsequently, he was allowed only £3·50 from the supplementary benefits office. Anyone who takes an interest

in this sort of matter or who takes in boarders will know that no one can be kept for a full week on £3·50. If it had not been for the kindness and consideration of a Mr. Forsyth, an active member of my local tennis association, in looking after this young man, he would have found himself on the street.
It is absolutely monstrous that the Act should work in this fashion. Assurances were given during the passage of the Bill—I shall quote a few—that hardship would be mitigated. But the letter from the insurance officer says that while Mr. Hamilton would normally be allowed £4·05 plus the non-householder addition for rent of 65p, a total of £4·70, because of Section 1(2) of the Social Security Act, 1971, this has been reduced to £3·10. I mentioned the sum of £3·50 earlier, but in fact it is £3·10. I think that the Minister would agree that for a person to exist on £3·10 in 1972 is a grievous hardship.
The third and last case I wish to mention is that of a Mr. Richard McKissack. The Minister has had notice of this case. I have not chosen cases of ne'er do wells or those liable to the accusations that tend to come from the Government side of the House. Mr. McKissack is an engineering worker who now finds himself unemployed for only the second time in 35 years. He was working in a non-union engineering shop where the workers had not received a rise over the previous 16 months. I am informed by the local trade union official that during that period there was an average rise of £4 per week in the Glasgow area. But this gentleman did not receive such a rise from the firm for which he worked. He was working four machines—not, I hasten to add, at the same time. He felt that he had been unjustly dealt with by his employer and after a few words left the job.
This man found himself without unemployment benefit and went to the social security office. It was through no fault of the manager or the office, because he has to apply the regulations as laid down by Parliament, that this man received only £3·45 a week for six weeks. When one considers that an old-age pensioner gets a minimum of £6 plus rent and rates and this man was asked to live on £3·45 a week with the present very high cost of living, I must say that I do not think the Act was intended to be as savage as that.
I hasten to add that if the Under-secretary reads the Committee proceedings, as I did earlier today, he will see that the Ministers present on that occasion, his right hon. Friend in particular, were warned by trade union Members from this side of the House of the hardship that would come by imposing a 40 per cent. reduction on the benefit that a person could get from social security. Here we have a very bad example of a person being asked to live on £3·45 a week.
It was quite fortuitous that this man had a sister and he could live with her, but if he had not had his sister to live with he would get no rent or rates allowance and he would find himself in a desperate position. Any legislation that allows a situation like that to exist in 1972 certainly needs to be re-examined.
I should like to quote what the Secretary of State said in Committee concerning the criteria and the implications of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said:
What we are all interested in is ensuring that this deduction"—
that is, the 40 per cent.—
which is not dramatic but which is enough to inconvenience a household—and is intended to be enough to make a marginal difference to the motivation of people at one end of the spectrum—is not imposed before a proper investigation as to the absence of fault.
I would say that obviously no proper investigation can have been made when a man is asked to live on £3·45 a week.
When this matter was raised time and time again by Opposition Members, former trade union officers who are familiar with this procedure when it was operated under previous legislation, they received an assurance from the Secretary of State, who said:
What I would like to do is to undertake that we shall consider writing in a reference to the Supplementary Benefits Commission's undoubted powers to meet exceptional need."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11th May, 1971; c. 46, 79.]
I raised the case of Mr. McKissack with the manager of the social security office. The manager hastened to tell me that Mr. McKissack would have a right of appeal. Unfortunately, however, because of the heavy backlog of cases in the Glasgow area—and my feeling is that many unscrupulous employers are using the opportunity they have with

high unemployment to make things difficult for some workers—the appeal did not take place for 10 weeks. In my opinion that is hardly fair and is not the way the Act was intended to work.
As a result of much protestation by Opposition Members, on Report stage of the Bill the Under-Secretary of State in charge of the Bill on that occasion gave this assurance:
I here state categorically on behalf of my right hon. Friend, and it will be on the record, that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will be asked to review its rules to meet the new situation arising out of the Bill in which the level of penalty is to rise to this explicit 40 per cent.
The Minister was getting very concerned about the representations. He continued in the same vein:
We will specifically ask the Commission to review its rules and to exercise its discretion under that provision of the 1966 Act in the light of the new figure which will be written into the Bill."—[Official Report, 8th July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 1591–92.]
The "new figure" is the iniquitous 40 per cent.
Has that review taken place? If the Minister cannot say tonight that something will be done about these cases in particular and about all the cases in general who will continue to suffer under the 40 per cent. rule, I should like to hear from him that the whole question is being reviewed by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
It is no secret to Scottish Members that the situation is serious, even for skilled workers. Compared with the situation in Great Britain as a whole, there are 28 skilled workers chasing every vacant job in Scotland. The figure for precision fitters is even higher: whereas the average for the country as a whole is eight, the figure for Scotland is 56. As for labourers, compared with the average in Great Britain there are 200 men chasing every job in Scotland.
What does the Minister intend to do about it? The great failure with Tory legislation is that the Tories do not always follow through the social consequences of their actions. I hope not to be accused of being petulant, but the Government must realise that if a man is given £3·45a week to live on for six weeks his dignity is damaged and he is rendered a disservice. I cannot imagine


the damage which would be done to a married man and his family. Changes will have to be made in the Act. I hope that the Minister will give an answer which will give some reassurance to those about whom I have spoken and all the others who may suffer under this legislation.

6.43 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) has sat through the night to raise this matter on the Adjournment. In the short time available to me I shall be glad to comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said and to try to put the legislation into perspective.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the generous tribute he has paid to the staff in our social security offices in his area. I will see that the hon. Gentleman's tribute is passed on to the staff.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on two of the cases he has raised, of which I have not had notice. If he would like me to look into those cases, and if he will let me have details, I will gladly examine the cases individually and ask the Commission to do so.
The legislation which governs this situation is primarily the National Insurance Act, 1965, which governs the unemployment benefit position, namely, that if a person is unemployed because of his own actions he is disqualified under Section 22(2) from receiving unemployment benefit for up to six weeks. The circumstances where such disqualification is applicable are defined in the Act and include misconduct—that is, misconduct in the industrial sense—voluntarily leaving employment without just cause; refusal without good cause to accept suitable employment offered by the employment exchange or an employer; and refusal without good cause to accept a reasonable opportunity of receiving an approved course of training.
The decision whether a person is disqualified in these circumstances is taken by the independent statutory authorities appointed under the 1965 Act. They are the insurance officer and, on appeal, the local appeal tribunal and the National

Insurance Comissioner. There is a large body of case law by which each of these adjudicating authorities is guided. The two important points here are that it must be unemployment caused by the person's own action, and of course this stipulation is there in fairness to the other contributors to the National Insurance scheme to try to ensure fairness as between one contributor and another. The other important point is that the disqualification is limited to six weeks. That is the maximum period for which this can operate. That is the position with regard to unemployment benefit.
It would be useless to try to protect the National Insurance Fund in this way from unreasonable claims for unemployment benefit if a person could immediately claim supplementary benefit as a substitute for the unemployment benefit which had been allowed. Accordingly, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, using its discretionary powers, decided that if such a person applied for supplementary benefit, any benefit payable should be reduced by 75p per week for up to six weeks.
However, it became clear that this relatively small deduction was largely a matter of indifference to the claimants and, therefore, the previous Labour Administration introduced a change to make this both a statutory deduction and at a higher level than the previous discretionary arrangements under the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The Bill containing that proposal by the previous Administration fell at the General Election, so it did not become law, but I make this point to illustrate that this is not a party political matter. This was regarded generally as necessary to give statutory backing to it and not leave it entirely to the discretion of the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the deduction which is now in operation under the 1971 Act came into force on 5th November, 1971, and is limited to a 40 per cent. reduction of the single householders supplementary benefit scale rate. It is important to emphasise that it is applied to the single householder rate. This means that in most cases, including married couples, the maximum reduction at present is £2·30.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether this was being reviewed. I can assure him that the operation of this part of our social security arrangements, as indeed all others, is kept under review. But there are provisions—this is an important feature in answering the hon. Gentleman's points—for discretionary power which the Supplementary Benefits Commission can exercise to avoid hardship. This provision does not impair the discretionary power of the Commission to meet urgent needs. Most cases where unemployment benefit is disallowed arise immediately after a period of employment, and most claimants should be able to bear without hardship a reduction of up to £2·30 in their supplementary benefit for six weeks.
However, some cases of hardship will arise and the Commission will use its discretionary powers as may be appropriate to the circumstances. Local offices have been instructed to be on the alert for possible hardship cases where a deduction has been applied.
The main factors which are likely to come into the hardship category, for which officers will be looking out, are the following: that the most recent employment was brief—in other words, that the man concerned did not really have a chance to be in employment for a long time and therefore could not build up any resources against a rainy day; that the recent earnings were low in relation to outgoings; that there is an unmet rent or mortgage capital repayment or a hire-purchase commitment not covered by disregarding income or capital; that there is sickness, or very young children, in the family; that the claimant's wife is pregnant; or that the family faces any unusual difficulty, whether temporary or not.
When the normal reduction is not made, a deduction of 75p will usually operate. Thus, although there is provision in the Act, there are these discretionary arrangements in cases of hardship which cover quite a wide variety of circumstances.
If disqualification for unemployment benefit is subsequently removed on appeal, a payment of supplementary benefit is made in arrears to meet the claimant's full normal requirements.
The hon. Member mentioned the case of Mr. McKissack, of which he had given me notice. In this case, unemployment benefit was disallowed. Mr. McKissack appealed against the disallowance to the independent tribunal and was unsuccessful. So far, he has not appealed to the national insurance commissioner. As regards the supplementary benefit side of things, the local officer considered that there were not grounds for mitigating the deduction under any of the headings which I have just mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the present position of Mr. McKissack is that, as from 10th June this year, he became entitled to unemployment benefit of £6 and earnings related supplement of £6·35, a total of £12·35 a week. Supplementary benefit is, therefore, no longer payable.
I hope that, in the short time available to me, I have conveyed to the hon. Gentleman that although there is legislalation, which was passed, I think, pretty well on a non-party basis inasmuch as both main parties recognised the need to legislate in this respect, there is a substantial discretion in the Supplementary Benefits Commission should there appear to be hardship in operating the law as it stands.

Mr. McElhone: The Minister will understand that I am not satisfied with that answer. I already have in my letter a copy of the categories which he outlined. Mr. McKissack was divorced from his wife some years ago, and he has been contributing to her upkeep and that of one child. Out of the low wages which he received from the firm, he had to pay his sister something and meet his travelling expenses. He just did not have the money to sustain himself over a period of six weeks. We cannot ask anyone to exist on £3·45 for six weeks.
Most of these people do not have money in the bank or funds to sustain themselves. Six weeks is a long time. I accept that he has had some earnings related benefit, but there is a dangerous principle here. In the case of a young person and a married man, to disallow benefit to the level of 40 per cent. is dangerous.

Mr. Dean: I think that the hon. Gentleman may not have appreciated that the wife was receiving supplementary benefit for herself and her son. That is another aspect of the case which he did not mention.
I shall gladly look at the two cases which the hon. Gentleman mentioned if he cares to let me have details of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Seven o'clock a.m